A 

o 

A 

.'  c 

0 

_  j 

0 

2    1 

PRICE  50  CENTS 


THE  TRUE  BASIS 

OF 

ECONOMICS 


THE    LAW    OF     INDEPENDENT    AND 
COLLECTIVE      HUMAN      LIFE 


BEING  A  CORRESPONDENCE 

BETWEEN 

DAVID     STARR     JORDAN 

President  of  the  Leland  Stanford  Jr.  University 


DR.    J.    H.    STALLARD 

Of  Menlo  Park,  California 
ON  THE  MERITS  OF 

THE  DOCTRINE   OF   HENRY  GEORGE 


NEW  YORK 
DOUBLEDAY  &  MeCLTJRE  CO. 


Sft  20       9 


THE  TRUE  BASIS 


ECONOMICS 


THE    LAW    OF     INDEPENDENT    AND 
COLLECTIVE      HUMAN      LIFE 


BEING  A  CORRESPONDENCE 


DAVID     STARR     JORDAN 

President  of  the  Leland  Stanford  Jr.  University 


DR.    J.    H.    STALLARD 

Of  Menlo  Park,  California 
ON  THE  MERITS  OF 

THE  DOCTRINE   OF   HENRY  GEORGE 


NEW  YORK 
DOUBLEDAY  &  McCLURE  CO. 


Copyright,    1899 


J.    H.    STALLARD 
Entered   at  Stationers'   Hall,    London 


Copyright,    1899 

BY 

J.    H.    STALLARD 


7 

PREFACE. 


This  correspondence  ensued  on  my  request  to 
Dr.  David  Starr  Jordan,  the  President  of  Stanford 
University,  that  he  would  give  me  his  opinion  and 
comments  on  Henry  George's  letter  to  the  Pope  on 
the  condition  of  labor. 

It  may  be  remembered  that  when  the  Kev.  Dr. 
McGlynn,  of  New  York,  became  a  convert  to  the 
Single  Tax,  he  was  silenced  by  order  of  the  Pope, 
and  eventually  excommunicated  for  contempt  of 
his  authority.  The  Pope  then  addressed  an  en- 
cyclical letter  to  his  clergy,  setting  forth  the 
principles  involved  in  the  labor  problem  as  he  saw 
them.  To  this  Henry  George  replied  in  an  open 
letter  which  was  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  Pope 
himself.  His  Holiness  apparently  perceived  that 
injustice  had  been  done,  and  he  ordered  the  re- 
opening of  Dr.  McGlynn's  case,  with  the  result 
that  he  was  restored  to  his  duties  in  New  York, 
the  order  of  silence  was  withdrawn,  and  he  was 
fully  restored  to  the  bosom  of  the  Church. 

Dr.  Jordan  promptly  complied  with  my  request, 
and  in  sending  him  my  arguments  in  opposition  to 
his  views,  I  requested  his  permission  to  publish 


4.20134 


the  correspondence,  with  such  further  comments 
as  he  might  choose  to  make. 

Dr.  Jordan's  answer  is  characteristic  of  the  wise 
and  open-minded  man  he  is:  "I  have  made  many 
notes.  Publish  what  seems  to  you  not  trifling  or 
irrelevant  and  sign  them  (J),  and  add  as  many 
more  as  you  please  and  sign  them  (S).  The  whole 
will  be  instructive  and  set  folks  thinking.  That 
is  all  we  college  men  are  for." 

That,  too,  is  all  that  Single  Taxers  are  for,  and 
it  is  for  the  public  to  determine  what  is  right. 

For  convenience  the  notes  have  been  put  in  an 

appendix. 

J.  H.  STALLARD,  M.  B., 

London,  Etc.,  Etc. 

The  Bungalow,  Menlo  Park, 

San  Mateo  Co.,  Cal.,  May,  1899. 


LETTER   FROA\ 

DR.  DAVID  STARR  JORDAN, 

President  Leland  Stanford,  Jr.,  University. 

Dr.  J.  H.  Stallard: — 

There  are  many  brilliant  and  many  true  things 
in  Mr.  George's  book,  and  on  the  basis  of  His 
Holiness'  assumption  Mr.  George  gives  him  a  very 
complete  as  well  as  a  very  courteous  answer. 

But  as  a  whole,  neither  this  nor  any  other  of 
George's  writings  appeals  to  me.  His  whole  basis 
seems  faulty.  He  assumes  that  certain  forms  of 
property  relation  have  a  divine  or  sacred  right. 
This  assumption  entering  into  his  premises,  re- 
appears in  his  conclusions,  which  are  thus  re- 
garded as  proved,  according  to  his  logic.  I  deny 
every  word  of  such  premises,  because  I  regard 
them  as  based  on  mere  figures  of  speech.  There  is 
no  such  thing  as  a  "right,"  except  as  we  find  ex- 
perimentally that  a  certain  line  of  action  makes 
for  more  and  better  life  among  men.  As  regards 
the  "law  of  equal  access  to  land"  among  men,  such 
a  law  is  a  mere  figment,  a  mere  metaphor.  The 
trees  have  not  equal  access.  While  the  present 
way  of  paying  running  expenses  of  government  is 
very  crude  and  faulty,  and  while  a  single  tax 


would  have  several  advantages,  it  has  also  its 
drawbacks,  and  a  land  tax  is  no  more  God-given 
than  a  beer  tax. 

Mr.  George  was  a  devoted  man,  had  full  faith  in 
the  sacredness  of  his  mission,  and  he  uses  divine 
metaphors  just  as  preachers  do.  The  methods  of 
science  seem  wholly  unknown  to  him,  and  he  falls 
back  on  his  imaginary  ethics  whenever  any  one 
asks  him  how  he  would  go  to  work  to  make  land 
public  property — whether,  for  example,  by  buying 
it  or  by  seizing  it,  or  by  alone  taxing  ownership 
out  of  existence,  and  as  to  how7  any  of  these 
methods  could  be  made  to  wTork.  Property  is  not 
a  divine  right.  It  is  a  creation  of  social  agree- 
ment, and  the  relation  best  for  society  is  "right" 
if  we  can  find  it  out. 

If,  as  Dr.  Warner  says,  "putting  air  in  private 
hands  would  yield  a  better  supply  on  juster  terms, 
there  is  no  divine  reason  why  we  should  not  turn 
the  atmosphere  over  to  an  air  company." 

Take  George's  work,  squeeze  out  every  meta- 
phor, cut  out  all  this  stuff  from  the  French  dream- 
ers of  the  last  century  about  the  rights  of  man  to 
one  thing  or  another,  and  put  it  all  into  straight 
English.  You  would  have  considerable  practical 
sense  about  various  men  and  things  drawrn  from 
his  own  extensive  observations;  but  the  argument 
from  divine  right  and  the  purposes  of  nature  has 


not  a  straw's  weight,  namely:  that  men  have  a 
natural  right  to  access  to  land;  therefore,  all  taxes 
must  by  divine  authority  be  laid  on  land  rentals. 
I  am  not  objecting  to  the  idea  of  the  public  use 
of  land  rentals,  but  to  the  divine  or  metaphysical 
argument  in  its  favor.  The  only  true  argument 
must  be  this:  It  has  been  tried,  it  works,  and  its 
results  on  individual  and  social  development  are 
better  than  those  obtained  through  other  forms  of 
land  tenure  and  of  taxation.  I  do  not  believe  this, 
either,  but  I  am  reasonably  open  to  conviction. 
Argument  from  purpose,  intention  or  divine  fit- 
ness is  a  mere  quibble  of  words. 

DAVID   STARR  JORDAN. 


ANSWER  OF 

Dr.  J.  H.  STALLARD, 

The  Bungalow,  Menlo  Park,  Cal. 

Dear  Dr.  Jordan: — 

I  have  to  thank  you  for  your  prompt  reply  to  my 
request  for  your  opinion  of  Henry  George's  ad- 
dress to  the  Pope  on  the  condition  of  labor. 

You  are  a  prince  among  educators,  the  head  of 
the  most  liberal  university  in  the  world — an  insti- 
tution which  I  trust  under  your  leadership  shall 
become  the  home  of  all  freedom,  and  whose  pro- 
fessors and  students  shall  determine  the  lines  of 
action  which  shall  hereafter  make  for  more  and 
better  life  among  men,  for  which  there  is  more 
than  ample  room.  I  therefore  regard  the  expres- 
sion of  your  views  on  this,  as  on  all  intellectual, 
social,  and  political  questions  on  which  you  choose 
to  speak,  as  the  truest  representation  of  modern 
thought  of  the  highest  type,  and  I  shall  endeavor 
to  discuss  the  subject  in  hand  in  all  seriousness 
and  with  due  respect. 

You  say,  "That  the  whole  basis  of  Mr.  George's 
argument  is  faulty;  that  he  assumes  that  certain 
forms  of  property  relation  have  a  divine  or  sacred 


right,  and  that  his  premises  are  based  upon  mere 
figures  of  speech.  Take  George's  work,  squeeze 
out  every  metaphor,  cut  out  all  the  'stuff'  of  the 
French  dreamers  of  the  last  century  about  the 
rights  of  man  to  one  thing  or  another,  and  put  it 
all  into  straight  English,  the  argument  would  not 
have  a  straw's  weight.  In  his  logic  he  takes  out 
nothing  at  the  end  not  assumed  at  the  beginning." 

In  the  following  observations  I  propose  to 
squeeze  out  every  metaphor,  every  suggestion  of 
divine  authority  and  the  purposes  of  nature,  all 
the  "stuff"  of  the  French  dreamers  of  the  last  cen- 
tury, to  confine  myself  to  the  most  strictly  scien- 
tific methods,  and,  in  straight  English,  to  base  my 
argument  on  facts  established  by  human  observa- 
tion and  experience  about  which  there  is  abso- 
lutely no  room  for  doubt. 

Before  doing  so  I  desire  to  thank  you  for  your 
good  and  terse  definition  of  what  is  "right,"  and 
I  agree  "that  there  is  no  such  thing  as  'right'  ex- 
cept as  we  find  experimentally  that  a  certain 
line  of  action  makes  for  more  and  better  life 
among  men."  I  promise  faithfully  to  apply  this 
definition  to  every  conclusion  I  may  draw. 

THE    LAW    OF    INDEPENDENT    HUMAN    LIFE. 

In  the  first  place,  man  is  an  animal  endowed 
with    "intelligence"   and    "strength,"1   which,   in 

9 


active  combination  is  technically  called  "labor." 
Labor  exerted  upon  earth,  air,  water  and  sunshine, 
technically  called  "land,"  yields  the  product 
"food,"  on  which  "all  men"  live.  The  application 
of  labor  to  land  is  technically  called  "industry"2 
in  the  following  argument. 

These  simple  indisputable  facts  form  the  whole 
foundation  of  Mr.  George's  argument.  There  is  in 
these  premises  no  metaphor,  no  mere  figures  of 
speech,  no  "if,"  no  assumption  of  divine  right  or 
purposes  of  nature,  but  a  simple,  truthful  and  un- 
answerable statement  of  man's  dependence  on  the 
voluntary  exercise  of  his  own  powers  upon  "land," 
on  the  result  of  which  he  lives  and  maintains 
existence.  Here  then  we  have  a  statement  of  bare, 
undoubted  facts,  involving  a  simple  line  of  action, 
which  not  only  makes  for  more  and  better  life 
among  men  but  is  the  only  possible  foundation  for 
the  continuance  of  human  life. 

In  the  next  place,  that  which  is  true  of  the 
whole  is  true  of  the  several  parts  upon  which  this 
line  of  action  operates.  Man  finds  experimentally 
that  he  must  have  under  his  own  individual  con- 
trol intelligence,  strength  and  land,  none  of  which 
can  be  taken  from  him  without  the  destruction  of 
his  life.  There  is  no  experimental  evidence  that 
human  life  can  be  continuously  maintained  in  any 


10 


other  way.3  Man  caDnot  live  on  intelligence,  nor 
on  strength,  and  "food"  will  not  drop  into  his  open 
mouth.4  This  line  of  action  being  open,  man's  in- 
dependent life  depends  solely  on  his  own  volun- 
tary exertion.  If  a  man  will  not  work,  neither 
shall  he  eat,  and  the  penalty  of  idleness  is  death. 
Happily  "industry-'  is  as  natural  as  "sleep"  to 
healthy,  well-fed  men,  and  the  gate  of  inde- 
pendence is  thus  made  open. 

You  have  lately  taught  us  wisely  that  the  main- 
tenance and  development  of  manhood  is  the  most 
important  matter  which  any  nation  in  the  world 
has  now  on  hand,  and  that  each  man  must  help  to 
solve  his  own  problems.  The  independent  main- 
tenance of  his  own  life  is  for  each  man  the  first 
and  most  important  problem.  The  manhood  of  a 
nation  depends  on  the  manhood  of  its  units.  The 
conditions  of  the  problem  are  embodied  in  the  line 
of  action  evolved  from  the  facts  detailed.  A  man 
has  only  to  be  free  to  think,  free  to  act,  and  free  to 
take  maintenance  by  his  own  labor  from  the  land, 
and  the  problem  for  the  individual  is  solved.  His 
life,  therefore,  depends  on  the  active  combination 
of  intellectual,  personal,  and  industrial  freedom. 
There  is  no  other  way.  No  man  is  free  who  under 
any  condition  whatever  is  compelled  to  beg  of  an- 
other either  food  or  work.5  Absolute  individual 
freedom  depends  on  "self  employment,"  only  made 

11 


possible  by  "access  to  land,"  which  is,  therefore, 
no  "mere  figment"  but  an  essential  condition  in  the 
maintenance  of  independent  human  life.6  Lastly, 
justice  between  man  and  man  declares  the  equal 
right  of  every  man  to  the  products  of  his  own 
labor.  It  constitutes  his  wealth  and  is  the  founda- 
tion upon  which  his  freedom  rests.  It  is  his  to 
consume,  to  hoard  or  dispose  of  at  his  will,  and  no 
one  has  either  legal  or  moral  right  to  take  it  from 
him  without  his  consent  and  adequate  compensa- 
tion. 

Your  argument  that  the  trees  have  not  "equal 
access"  to  land  seems  to  me  without  force.7  The 
life  of  trees  is  not  dependent  on  the  same  condi- 
tions as  the  life  of  man.  Trees  are  not  endowed 
either  with  intellect  or  active  strength.13  They 
have  no  power  of  choice  or  locomotion,  both  of 
which  are  absolute  conditions  of  individual  human 
life.  Besides  "equal"  access  is  neither  possible  nor 
necessary  either  to  trees  or  man.  Equal  oppor- 
tunity is  all  that  is  required.  Once  armed  with 
the  independent  opportunity  of  maintaining  life 
bythe  employment  of  his  own  "labor"  upon  "land" 
a  man  however  destitute  is  really  "free."9  He  is 
no  longer  at  the  mercy  of  employers.10  He  is  no 
longer  subject  to  the  law  of  Lasalle.  Henceforth 
he  is  provided  with  an  alternative  which  enables 
him  to  refuse  "bare  subsistence  wages"  and  he  pos- 

12 


sesses  an  independent  remedy  against  starvation, 
misery  and  death.  He  is  provided  with  a  line  of 
action  which  experimentally  makes  for  more  and 
better  life  among  men.11 

In  the  next  place,  this  "line  of  action"  is  in- 
exorable, unalterable,  and  universal  in  its  applica- 
tion. There  is  no  other  "line  of  action"  which  se- 
cures the  independent  existence  of  human  beings. 
It  rises,  therefore,  to  the  conditions  of  "a  general 
law."  This  law  of  independent  life  controls  the 
maintenance  of  human  life  and  movements  just  as 
the  law  of  gravitation  controls  the  life  and  move- 
ments of  the  planetary  bodies.  Starvation, 
misery  and  death  result  from  the  violation  of  the 
one,  as  surely  as  planetary  destruction  would  from 
the  violation  of  the  other.12 

Now,  general  laws  are  laws  of  necessity,  moral- 
ity and  justice.  In  action  they  are  just,  equal,  un- 
changeable and  permanent.  There  is,  therefore, 
no  room  for  that  fickle,  unstable,  undefined  and 
mythical  force  called  "Social  Agreement,"  which 
is  wholly  unable  to  determine  what  is  "right,"  and 
it  is  no  wonder  that  "rights"  so  artificially  created 
are  difficult,  nay,  impossible,  to  find  out.  Social 
agreement  cannot  be  a  substitute  for  a  general 
law,  for  no  statesman  is  wise  enought,  no  govern- 
ment strong  enough,  to  improve  on  such  a  law. 
Social   agreement   can   only   meddle   with   intel- 

13 


lectual,  personal  and  industrial  freedom,  to  spoil 
their  just  and  equal  action.  Social  agreement  is 
impotent  to  provide  either  food  or  employment  for 
all  mankind.13  History  provides  us  with  many  ex- 
amples of  its  baneful  interference.  In  the  reign  of 
Henry  VII,  when  in  England  "every  rood  main- 
tained its  man,"  the  English  yeoman  occupied  his 
rood  in  comfort  and  happiness  on  definite  and 
easy  terms.14  But  when  Henry  VIII  made  land  a 
commodity  to  be  bought,  sold,  and  controlled  by 
individuals  (called  Steplords  by  Latimer),  the 
masses  of  the  people  were  evicted  from  their 
homesteads  by  the  exaction  of  rent  they  could  not 
pay.  In  a  few  years  the  whole  island  swarmed 
with  the  destitute,  who  became  vagabonds  and 
thieves  in  order  to  sustain  existence.  The  nation 
was  threatened  with  anarchy,  and  in  the  reign  of 
Elizabeth  social  agreement,  as  represented  by  the 
English  Poor  Law,  endeavored  to  remedy  the  evil, 
by  giving  to  the  destitute  a  legal  right  to  food, 
clothing  and  shelter,  making  this  a  first  charge 
upon  the  land.  The  result  was  pauperism;  the 
greatest  curse  ever  inflicted  upon  a  thrifty  and  in- 
dustrious people.15 

After  300  years  the  sermons  of  Latimer  are  re- 
echoed by  Mr.  Henry  George,  and  happily  their 
doctrines  will  never  again  be  stifled  at  the  stake. 

In  Spain,  social  agreement  attempted  to  control 

14 


the  intellects  of  men,  and  the  result  was  the 
miseries,  tortures  and  murders  of  the  Inquisition. 

In  America  and  elsewhere  social  agreement 
sought  to  control  personal  freedom,  and  the  re- 
sult was  "slavery." 

And  to-day  social  agreement  continues  the  prac- 
tice of  that  tyrant,  Henry.  Still  treats  land  as  a 
commodity  of  sale  and  purchase.  Still  gives  the 
landlord  power  to  exact  a  steadily  increasing  rent. 
Still  gives  him  power  to  evict  those  who  refuse  or 
are  unable  to  pay  him  toll.  Still  enables  the  land- 
lord to  live  in  ease  and  luxury  on  the  labor  of  other 
people,  and  make  serfs  and  paupers  of  the  indus- 
trial class. 

The  conclusion  is  unanswerable,  social  agree- 
ment cannot  successfully  control  the  conditions  of 
independent  human  life,  the  only  fixed  law  which 
makes  experimentally  for  more  and  better  life 
among  men.16 

THE    LAW    OE    COLLECTIVE    HUMAN   LIEE. 

Now,  the  law  of  independent  human  life  is  also 
the  law  of  human  life  in  general.  That  which  is 
true  of  "all  men"  in  the  individual  sense  must  also 
be  true  of  "all  men"  in  the  collective  sense.  All 
men  collectively  must  have  intellectual,  personal, 
and  industrial  freedom,  which  are,  therefore,  the 
essential  elements  of  both  individual  and  collec- 


16 


tive  life.  The  law  of  individual  life  is  simply  for- 
tified and  extended  by  collective  action.  Thus 
whilst  individual  industrial  freedom  secures  for 
"all  men"  individually  little  more  than  a  "bare 
subsistence,"  collective  industrial  freedom  is  able 
to  satisfy  the  millions  of  intellectual  and  physical 
desires  of  "all  men"  living  in  civilized  communi- 
ties; and  if  this  result  is  not  reached,  the  failure 
cannot  be  charged  upon  the  law  but  on  its  viola- 
tion and  neglect.  As  access  to  land  is  an  essen- 
tial element  of  individual  life  and  freedom,  so  it 
must  be  an  essential  element  of  collective  life  and 
freedom,  for  without  land  no  community  can  live 
or  find  material  on  which  to  operate.17  It  is  this 
inseparable  relation  of  land  to  labor  which  gives 
the  land  such  paramount  importance,  for  unless 
"land"  be  equally  free  to  all  mankind,  industrial 
freedom  becomes  impossible  both  to  individuals 
and  to  mankind  in  general. 

Again,  as  the  law  of  independent  life  secures  to 
every  individual  the  products  of  his  own  industry, 
to  consume,  to  hoard,  or  dispose  of  at  his  will,  so 
the  law  of  collective  life  demands  co-partnership 
in  the  products  of  collective  industry,  to  be  hoard- 
ed, consumed  or  disposed  of  by  the  collective  will. 
The  collective  operators  cannot  appropriate  and 
use  the  products  of  individual  industry  nor  can  in- 
dividuals appropriate  and  use  the  products  of  col- 

16 


lective  industry.  Either  violates  the  general  law 
of  human  life,  which  makes  for  more  and  better 
life  among  men.  From  this  it  follows  that  wher- 
ever there  is  co-operation  in  production,  there 
must  also  in  justice  be  co-partnership  in  result, 
and  both  become  equally  essential  elements  of  the 
general  law  of  human  life.  The  nation,  state,  city 
or  community  which  takes  the  products  of  indi- 
vidual labor  without  his  consent  and  adequate 
compensation  destroys  individual  freedom,  and 
acts  like  a  thief  who  robs  him  of  the  same,  and  as 
this  is  done  by  modern  governments,  they  fail  to 
make  for  more  and  better  life  among  men. 

On  the  other  hand,  every  individual  who  appro- 
priates the  products  of  collective  labor,  and  thus 
denies  co-partnership  in  the  collective  result,  is 
equally  guilty  of  robbing  the  collective  units.  As 
this  also  is  sanctioned  and  upheld  by  modern  gov- 
ernments they  fail  on  both  accounts  to  make  for 
more  and  better  life  among  men. 

Now,  it  is  not  difficult  to  discover  the  source  of 
collective  products,  nor  where  they  go.  They 
spring  from  the  fact  that  in  collective  industry  no 
individual  can  work  for  himself  exclusively,  be- 
cause the  combined  industry  of  two  or  more  men 
is  necessarily  stronger  and  more  efficient  than  that 
of  the  same  two  or  more  men  acting  separately 
each  in  his  own  behalf.     Therefore,  after  award- 

17 


ing  to  each  individual  that  portion  of  the  collec- 
tive product  which  represents  his  individual  exer- 
tion (technically  called  his  wages)  there  is  invari- 
ably a  surplus  produced  by  the  co-operators  in 
their  corporate  capacity,  in  which,  nevertheless, 
the  individuals  have  a  co-partnership  interest.18 
In  the  millions  of  complicated  conditions  of  col- 
lective life  and  labor  it  is  impossible  to  segregate 
the  share  of  each  producer  in  the  collective  result, 
but  it  is  universally  admitted  that  the  larger  part 
is  faithfully  conserved  and  concentrated  in  land 
value,  and  that  it  constitutes  that  increment  of 
value  which  attaches  to  land  in  consequence  of  the 
increase  of  population,  and  is  technically  called 
"rent."19  Without  collective  industry  land  has  no 
valueand  there  is  no  "rent" — which  "coeteris  pari- 
bus" increases  directly  in  proportion  to  the  popula- 
tion. It  is  the  collective  industry  of  the  popula- 
tion which  alone  produces  it.  It  is  the  popula- 
tion who  are  co-partners  and  who  are  authorized 
by  the  general  law  of  human  life  to  hoard,  con- 
sume or  dispose  of  as  they  please,  and  as  it  cannot 
be  equitably  divided  amongst  the  individual  pro- 
ducers, it  can  only  be  applicable  to  the  provision 
of  their  common  wants,  of  which  the  current  ex- 
penses of  government  is  a  fair  example.  Hence  it 
is  the  only  source  of  taxation  provided  by  the  gen- 
eral law  of  human  life.     It  is  the  "Single  Tax." 

18 


The  result  of  this  analysis  of  Mr.  Henry  George's 
premises  justifies  the  conclusion  that  it  is  only  by 
absolute  obedience  to  the  general  law  of  inde- 
pendent and  collective  human  life  that  we  can 
hope  to  realize  the  inalienable  right  of  all  men 
equally  to  life,  liberty  and  the  pursuit  of  happi- 
ness (Jefferson),  the  satisfaction  of  human,  intel- 
lectual and  physical  desires  (H.  George),  or  the 
making  for  more  and  better  life  among  men  (Jor- 
dan). 

LAND   APPROPRIATION. 

Having  thus  established  the  general  law  of  in- 
dependent and  collective  human  life  which  "all 
men"  must  obey  in  order  to  live  and  prosper,  it 
is  permitted  by  the  accepted  canon  of  scientific 
procedure  to  substitute  the  "deductive"  for  the 
"inductive"  method,  and  to  employ  the  general 
law  as  to  the  test  of  existing  conditions  and  as  a 
means  of  pointing  out  other  lines  of  action  which 
make  for  more  and  better  life  among  men. 

And  first  with  regard  to  "land."  In  order  to 
state  these  conditions  clearly  I  will  relate  a  recent 
history  of  land  appropriation. 

Within  a  few  weeks  of  fifty  years  ago,  a  few 
hundred  citizens  of  the  United  States  landed  on 
the  western  shore  of  San  Francisco  Bay.  They 
found  a  nest  of  sterile  sand-hills  of  no  more  value 
than  the  summits  of  the  Sierra  Nevada  Mountains. 

19 


They  were  free  to  take,  and  did  take,  all  the  sur- 
face they  required  for  use.  But  not  content  with 
this,  and  under  the  paramount  power  and  au- 
thority of  the  Government  of  the  United  States, 
the  most  perfect  organization  of  social  agreement 
in  the  world,  they  proceeded  to  appropriate  to 
themselves  and  their  heirs  and  assigns  forever  the 
exclusive  ownership  of  "all  the  earth  in  sight." 

Had  these  citizens  raised  the  peninsula  from  the 
depths  of  the  Pacific  Ocean  by  their  own  asso- 
ciated labor,  the  land  would  have  been  their  own, 
and  this  appropriation  would  have  been  fully  jus- 
tified; but  as  they  found  the  sand-hills  ready  to 
their  hands,  it  seems  difficult  to  understand  how 
any  authority  whatever  or  any  deed  or  paper  could 
confer  upon  any  set  of  individuals  the  exclusive 
ownership  of  one  of  the  essential  conditions  of 
human  life,  and  of  a  portion  of  the  earth  specially 
adapted  to  the  conditions  of  collective  life. 

But  in  accordance  with  the  law,  they  divided  up 
the  land  into  blocks,  and  the  public  official  who 
conducted  the  appropriation  still  lives  in  San 
Francisco,  and  testifies  that  many  hundreds  of 
these  blocks  were  given  away  to  individuals  with- 
out the  payment  of  a  cent,  without  even  any  guar- 
antee to  use  them,  and  at  the  sole  cost  of  pens,  ink 
and  paper  necessary  for  the  completion  of  this 
strictly  "legal,"  and  according  to  jurists,  states- 

20 


men  and  political  economists,  strictly  "righteous1' 
action.20 

That  the  land  was  valueless  does  not  in  any  way 
alter  the  nature  of  the  case.  These  citizens  were 
legally  created  "landlords,"  and  given  absolute  con- 
trol of  what  was  already  a  necessity  of  associated 
life.  They  were  endowed  with  the  power  of  making 
serfs  of  "all  men"  who  should  hereafter  desire  to 
occupy  "their  land"  In  straight  English  they 
were  simply  "landgrabbers,"  legalized  thieves  of 
land  which  they  did  not  make,  and  to  the  use  of 
which  they  had  no  better  title  than  any  other  set 
of  men.  They  took  advantage  of  the  unrighteous 
law  and  practice  of  the  United  States  to  forestall 
the  advent  of  an  industrious  population,  already 
known  to  be  on  the  way  to  San  Francisco  from 
every  quarter  of  the  globe;  and  to  make  all  future 
immigrants  pay  toll  for  the  privilege  of  occupy- 
ing these  easily  acquired  "blocks,"  or  to  pay  pur- 
chase money  for  the  transfer  of  the  right  to  collect 
this  toll.  These  robbers  are  still  at  large,  and 
still  enjoy  the  protection  of  the  "law"  !  !  They, 
their  heirs  and  assigns,  still  continue  to  exact  a 
steadily  increasing  toll  for  the  privilege  of  occupa- 
tion; still  have  the  right  to  sell  at  a  continually 
advancing  price.  Many  of  these  landgrabbers 
withhold  their  blocks  from  use,  because  they  are 
certain   that   with    increasing   population    their 

21 


value  will  increase,  and  will  ensure  more  rent. 
Nor  is  this  practice  confined  to  city  "blocks."  Mil- 
lions of  acres  in  the  State  of  California  are  held  by 
"landgrabbers"  on  the  same  title,  not  so  much  for 
present  use  and  profit  as  for  the  prospective  cer- 
tainty that  an  increase  of  population  will  give 
them  higher  rent  or  more  purchase  money  for  the 
privilege  of  taking  it. 

But  the  "cinch"  of  these  "landgrabbers"  was 
not  exclusively  confined  to  land  considered  as  a 
place  of  residence.  For  he  who  controls  the  land 
controls  the  laborer  who  lives  on  it.  From  the 
moment  of  this  appropriation,  fifty  years  ago,  un- 
til to-day,  these  landgrabbers  have  exacted  toll 
from  every  laborer.  Every  coming  ship  brought 
more  grist  to  the  grabbing  mill.  Every  man  who 
did  an  hour's  work,  built  a  shanty,  opened  a  store, 
or  made  a  workshop ;  every  importer  who  brought 
in  food  and  clothing,  increased  the  value  of  their 
unoccupied,  sterile  blocks.  And  now  every  im- 
provement, whether  made  by  individuals,  corpora- 
tions, or  the  city  government,  brings  gain  to  the 
grabbers  of  the  rent.  If  a  street  is  well  paved, 
well  lighted,  and  well  cleansed  by  the  public  ser- 
vants, the  rent  of  the  houses  will  be  higher  than 
that  of  similar  houses  in  a  dirty,  dark  and  ill 
paved  street.  A  park  created  at  the  public  cost 
raises  the  rental  of  the  surrounding  land.     Car 

22 


lines  have  recently  been  constructed  on  two 
streets  of  San  Francisco,  and  the  abutting  land 
assessment  has  been  raised  fifty  per  cent.,  all  of 
which  is,  or  will  be,  made  the  source  of  increased 
rent.  The  necessities  of  commerce  have  raised  the 
value  of  land  on  the  water  front;  the  require- 
ments of  retail  business  have  done  the  same  on 
Market  street.  Residential  value  is  continually 
growing  in  the  suburbs;  and  to-day  a  square  foot 
of  land  in  San  Francisco  is  worth  more  than  a  hun- 
dred square  miles  upon  the  mountain  tops.  That 
which  was  valueless  fifty  years  ago  is  now  worth 
many  hundred  millions.21  Here  then  is  a  huge 
fund,  not  created  by  these  so-called  owners,  but  by 
the  co-operate  activities  and  necessities  of  the  en- 
tire community.  A  fund  which  under  the  general 
law  of  associated  human  life  belongs  to  the  co- 
partners who  produced  it,  to  be  administered  by 
social  agreement  for  public  purposes  and  in  the 
interest  of  all  the  people. 

A  fund  which  has  been  diverted  from  it  lawful 
owners  to  the  pockets  of  men  whose  individual  in- 
dustry scarcely  contributed  a  mite  to  the  result. 
A  fund  which  has  enabled  thousands  to  live  in 
idleness  and  luxury  at  the  expense  of  the  poverty, 
misery  and  starvation  of  their  fellow  citizens. 

Consider  for  a  moment  what  this  co-partnership 
fund  would  have  done  for  its  real  owners.     The 

23 


current  expenses  of  the  municipal,  state  and  fed- 
eral governments  would  have  been  a  mere  baga- 
telle. The  municipal  government  might  have 
erected  gas  works,  water  works,  electrical  works, 
and  street  car  lines.  Light,  electricity,  water  and 
public  transportation  might  have  been  free  to  all, 
whereas,  these  works  have  been  erected  by  capital 
furnished  by  the  rent  belonging  to  the  citizens  and 
for  the  use  of  which  the  citizens  now  must  pay. 
Public  buildings  not  dreamed  of  in  the  palmy  days 
of  Greece  and  Rome  could  have  been  erected  at 
the  public  cost;  also,  free  schools,  universities, 
libraries,  theatres,  museums,  art  galleries,  parks 
and  observatories;  and  a  score  of  public  utilities 
by  which  the  co-partner  profits  might  have  been 
indefinitely  increased.  And  at  our  public  festi- 
vals we  could  have  emulated  the  citizens  of  Potosi, 
by  paving  our  streets  with  silver  and  adorning 
our  public  processions  with  gold  and  precious 
stones.  And  all  this  without  taking  one  cent  of 
taxation  from  individual  industry.  It  is  impos- 
sible to  conceive  the  effect  of  the  Single  Tax  on 
the  morals  and  intellectual  progress  of  the  peo- 
ple, but  it  may  be  safely  stated  that  the  fear  of 
poverty  being  gone  the  need  of  policemen,  judges, 
jails,  and  poorhouses  would  have  been  reduced  to 
a  minimum.22 

Tested  experimentally  the  existing  relation  be- 

24 


tween  land  and  population  is  a  grievous  violation 
of  the  general  law  of  human  life.  The  vast  fund 
created  by  co-operative  industry,  the  administra- 
tion of  which  belongs  to  the  population  as  co- 
partners, has  been  diverted  by  social  agreement  to 
individuals  who  have  no  claim.  It  is  the  object  of 
the  "Single  Tax"  to  restore  this  fund  to  the  control 
of  its  original  producers,  and  thus  relieve  industry 
of  the  millstone  of  rent  hung  about  its  neck  by 
landlords.  Thus  giving  individual  and  collective 
workers  the  full  enjoyment  of  the  wealth  they  re- 
spectively produce.  The  fulfillment  of  the  general 
law  of  human  life  is  the  only  line  of  action  which 
makes  for  more  and  better  life  among  men. 

CONFUSION   AS  TO   PROPERTY   IN   LAND. 

And  here  I  have  to  note  your  statement  "that 
Mr.  George  falls  back  on  his  imaginary  ethics 
whenever  anyone  asks  him  how  he  would  make 
'land'  public  property,  whether  by  buying  it  or 
seizing  it,  or  taxing  ownership  out  of  existence,  or 
how  any  of  these  methods  could  be  made  to 
work."  I  am  indeed  grieved  to  notice  so  complete 
a  misapprehension  of  Mr.  George's  doctrine.  There 
is  throughout  Mr.  George's  writings  no  proposal 
whatever  to  make  land  public  property  by  buying 
it  or  seizing  it,  and,  consequently,  no  attempt  at 
explanation   as  to   how  either  method   could   be 

26 


made  to  work.  On  the  contrary,  he  states  that  a 
redivision  of  land  is  not  possible,  and  if  possible 
could  not  be  permanent.  That  possession  for  use 
is  necessary  for  the  sower  to  reap  his  crop,  or  the 
builder  to  recoup  the  cost  of  the  improvements  he 
may  make.  He  nowhere  proposes  to  disturb  the 
present  occupiers  of  land;  and  insists  that  any 
such  disturbance  would  amount  to  revolution. 

You  seem  to  confound  property  in  use  with  prop- 
erty in  so-called  ownership;  and  to  suppose  that 
ownership  is  necessary  for  land  improvement  and 
development.  But  this  is  not  even  a  general  ex- 
perience. Half  London,  including  many  hundreds 
of  its  finest  palaces,  half  New  York,  and  of  many 
other  cities  have  been  constructed  on  land  not 
owned  by  the  builders.1'3  The  landlords  of  London 
and  New  York  are  not  such  fools  as  to  alienate 
their  perpetual  right  to  constantly  increasing  rent. 
It  remains  only  to  governments  like  that  of  the 
United  States  to  give  away  the  national  heritage 
for  the  price  of  pens,  ink  and  paper,  and  enable 
landlords  forever  to  collect  a  continually  increas- 
ing toll  on  labor.  It  is  quite  true  that  Mr.  George 
rests  most  of  his  arguments  on  the  foundation  of 
moral  right,  as  when  he  states  that  a  laborer  is 
entitled  morally  to  the  products  of  his  own  in- 
dustry. And  there  are  thousands  who  believe 
that  this  is  the  stronger  ground,  but  a  close  analy- 

26 


sis  distinctly  proves  that  his  ethics  are  not  imagi- 
nary, and  that  his  metaphors  are  supported  by 
substantial  facts,  namely,  those  laid  down  at  the 
beginning  of  this  letter. 

Instead  of  demanding  an  accounting  such  as 
would  be  ordered  by  the  Courts  in  the  case  of  in- 
dividuals wrongfully24  possessed  of  land,  Mr. 
George  proposes  to  let  by-gones  be  by-gones,  and 
the  landlord  having  had  his  turn  it  is  now  more 
than  time  that  the  people,  who  have  been  so  long 
defrauded  of  the  product  of  their  collective  labor, 
and  have  suffered  so  deeply  for  the  want  of  the 
"rent"  which  they  have  earned,  should  be  restored 
to  their  collective  heritage. 

Mr.  George's  proposal  is  just,  clear  and  practi- 
cal. He  desires  that  "all  men"  in  their  collective 
capacity  should  assume  their  undoubted  right  to 
the  ownership  of  land,  and  that  all  men  indi- 
vidually shall  have  equal  opportunity  to  its  use 
and  occupation  on  the  payment  of  rent  represent- 
ing its  value  to  the  entire  community.  This  rent 
to  be  collected  as  a  single  tax,  and  used  to  provide 
for  common  necessities  and  the  satisfaction  of 
common  desires.  The  result,  no  doubt,  will  be  the 
ultimate  destruction  of  the  landlord — a  consum- 
mation devoutly  to  be  wished. 

But  Mr.  George  did  not  expect  that  the  "rent" 
could  be  taken  from    the  landlords  all    at  once. 

27 


They  are  much  too  powerful,  and  the  masses  of 
producers  much  too  ignorant  and  venal.  But  the 
time  is  coming,  and  it  is  not  far  distant,  when  the 
producers  of  wealth  shall  have  learned  their 
"rights"  under  the  general  law  of  human  life,  and 
with  the  aid  of  universal  suffrage  and  the  ballot 
will  not  fail  to  take  them.  It  is  the  duty  of  uni- 
versities to  conduct  the  necessary  change  with 
wisdom  and  moderation. 

THE    PRESENT    CONDITION    OF    LABOR. 

Mr.  George,  in  Progress  and  Poverty,  described 
the  present  condition  of  the  laborer  in  the  lowest 
ranks  of  civilized  society,  whose  life  is  spent  in 
common  labor,  or  in  producing  one  thing  or  an  in- 
finitesimal part  of  one  thing,  out  of  the  multi- 
plicity of  things  that  constitute  the  wealth  of  so- 
ciety. How  he  is  a  mere  link  in  the  enormous 
chain  of  producers  and  consumers;  helpless  to 
separate  himself,  and  helpless  to  move  except  as 
they  move.  The  worse  his  position  in  society  the 
more  he  is  dependent  on  society,  the  more  utterly 
unable  does  he  become  to  help  himself. 

The  very  power  of  exerting  his  labor  for  the 
satisfaction  of  his  most  reasonable  wants  passes 
from  his  own  control,  and  may  be  taken  away  or 
restored  by  the  action  of  others,  or  by  general 
causes,  over  which  he  has  no  more  influence  than 

28 


he  has  over  the  motions  of  the  solar  system.     That 
under  such  circumstances  he  loses  the  essential 
quality  of  manhood.     He  becomes  a  slave,  a  ma- 
chine, a  commodity,  a  thing  in  some  respects  lower 
than   the   animal,    for   he   looks    to    crime   and 
drunkenness  as  the  only  hopeful  sources  of  relief. 
In  the  days  of  cannibalism,  says  Ingersoll,  the 
strong  devoured  the  weak,  actually  ate  their  flesh. 
In  spite  of  all  the  laws  that  man  has  made,  in  spite 
of  all  the  advances  of  science,  the  strong  still  live 
upon  the  weak,25  the    unfortunate,  the    foolish. 
True,  they  do  not  eat  their  flesh  and  drink  their 
blood,  but  they  live  on  their  labor.     The  man  who 
deforms  himself  by  toil,  who  labors  for  his  wife 
and  children  through  all  his  barren  wasted  life, 
and  goes  to  his  grave  without  having  tasted  a  sin- 
gle luxury,  has  been  the  food  of  others.     The  poor 
woman  living  in  her  lonely  room,  cheerless  and 
tireless,  sewing  night  and  day  to  keep  starvation 
from  her  child,  is  slowly  being  eaten  alive  by  her 
fellow  men.26     When  I  take  into  consideration  the 
agony  of  civilized  life,  the  failures  and  anxieties, 
the  tears  and  withered  hopes,  the  bitter  realities, 
the  hunger,27  crime,  drunkenness,  ignorance  and 
humiliation,  I  am  almost  forced  to  say  that  canni- 
balism, after  all,  is   the  most  merciful    form  in 
which  man  has  lived  upon  his  fellow  men. 


29 


In  this  connection  Markham's  great  poem  re- 
cently written,  after  seeing  Millet's  famous  picture 
of  The  Man  With  the  Hoe,  deserves  quotation; 

Bowed  by  the  weight  of  centuries  he  leans 

Upon  his  hoe  and  gazes  on  the  ground, 

The  emptiness  of  ages  in  his  face, 

And  on  his  back  the  burden  of  the  world. 

Who  made  him  dead  to  rapture  and  despair, 

A  thing  that  grieves  not  and  that  never  hopes, 

Stolid  and  stunned,  a  brother  to  the  ox? 

Who  loosened  and  let  down  this  brutal  jaw? 

Whose  was  the  hand  that  slanted  back  this  brow? 

Whose  breath  blew  out  the  light  within  this  brain? 

Is  this  the  thing  the  Lord  God  made  and  gave 

To  have  dominion  over  all  the  land; 

To   trace  the   stars   and   search   the   heavens   for 

power; 
To  fell  the  passion  of  Eternity? 
Is  this  the  Dream  He  dreamed  who  shaped  the  suns 
And  pillared  the  blue  firmament  with  light? 
Down  all  the  stretch  of  Hell  to  its  last  gulf 
There  is  no  shape  more  terrible  than  this — 
More  tongued  with  censure  of  the  world's   blind 

greed — 
More  filled  with  signs  and  portents  for  the  soul — 
More  fraught  with  menace  to  the  universe. 

What  gulfs  between  him  and  the  seraphim! 
Slave  of  the  wheel  of  labor,  what  to  him 
Are  Plato  and  the  swing  of  Pleiades? 
What  the  long  reaches  of  the  peaks  of  song, 
The  rift  of  dawn,  the  reddening  of  the  rose? 
Through  this  dread  shape  the  suffering  ages  look; 
Time's  tragedy  is  in  that  aching  stoop; 
Through  this  dead  shape  humanity  betrayed, 
Plundered,  profaned  and  disinherited, 
Cries  protest  to  the  Judges  of  the  world, 
A  protest  that  is  also  prophecy. 


30 


O,  masters,  lords  and  rulers  in  all  lands, 

Is  this  the  handiwork  you  give  to  God, 

This  monstrous  thing  distorted  and  soul-quenched? 

How  will  you  ever  straighten  up  this  shape; 

Give  back  the  upward  looking  and  the  light; 

Rebuild  it  in  the  music  and  the  dream; 

Touch  it  again  with  immortality; 

Make  right  the  immemorial  infamies 

Perfidious  wrongs,  immediable  woes? 

O,  masters,  lords  and  rulers  in  all  lands, 
How  will  the  future  reckon  with  this  man? 
How  answer  this  brute  question  in  that  hour 
When  whirlwinds  of  rebellion  shake  the  world? 
How  will  it  be  with  kingdoms  and  with  Kings — 
With  those  who  shaped  him  to  the  thing  he  is — 
When  this  dumb  error  shall  reply  to  God, 
After  the  silence  of  the  centuries? 


This  the  truest  and  most  forcible  accusation 
ever  launched  by  genius  against  the  existing  con- 
ditions of  society.  It  is  a  fitting  climax  to  Hood's 
"Song  of  the  Shirt,"  Burns'  "O'er  Labored  Wight" 
and  Mrs.  Browning's  impassioned  cry  to  "Hear  the 
Children  Weeping." 

These  only  describe  the  pitiable  facts,  but  the 
great  merit  of  Markham's  poem  consists  in  his 
pointing  out  the  cause,  and  its  inestimable  value 
lies  in  the  fact  that  when  the  cause  of  any  great 
evil  becomes  known  and  recognized  by  the  masses 
of  the  people  it  is  sure  to  be  removed. 

Oh,  landlords,  masters,  and  rulers  of  the  soil,  is 
this  the  handiwork  you  give  to  God?  It  is  by  you 
humanity  has  been  betrayed,  plundered,  profaned 
and  disinherited.     It  is  you  who  have  shaped  him 

31 


to  be  the  thing  he  is.  How  shall  it  be  with  you 
when  this  dumb  terror  shall  reply  to  God  after  the 
silence  of  the  centuries?  The  man  with  the  hoe 
is  not  a  remnant  of  prehistoric  times.  The  know- 
ledge of  good  and  evil  was  man's  first  acquire- 
ment, a  knowledge  which  the  man  with  the  hoe 
has  lost.  Barbarism  never  made  a  human  being 
like  him.  No  such  creature  is  to  be  found  among 
savage  races.  He  is  not  a  simple  improvement 
on  the  monkey  taught  to  use  the  hoe.  His  an- 
cestors were  men,  not  monkeys.  He  is  the  natural 
brother  of  the  honored  among  men,  La  Place,  Des 
Cartes,  Pasteur  and  a  thousand  others. 

He  is  not  exclusively  of  French  production.  In 
many  countries  he  is  found  in  the  garb  of  woman. 
He  is  found  abundantly  in  Eastern  Germany, 
where  landlords  are  strong  and  powerful. 
Throughout  England  he  is  found  in  the  very  midst 
of  civilization,  and  he  is  known  in  every  village. 
His  name  is  Hodge,  and  he  is  recognized  by  the 
ingenious  deliberation  of  all  his  movements,  for  he 
has  learned  by  dire  experience  to  accurately  adapt 
his  expenditure  of  force  to  the  measure  of  his  bare 
subsistence  diet.  In  the  presence  of  his  master  he 
puts  forth  a  little  deceptive  energy,  but  behind 
his  back  he  rests  upon  his  hoe  and  looks  upon  the 
ground.  Moreover,  he  is  here  the  last  to  escape 
from  military  service.     He  is  the  easy  prey  of  the 

32 


recruiting  sergeant.  He  takes  the  Queen's  shilling 
in  prospect  of  a  mild  debauch.  He  struts  like  a 
peacock  in  his  scarlet  uniform.  Set  up  and  drilled 
he  becomes  the  sturdy  backbone  of  the  great  mili- 
tary machine.  In  the  ranks  he  is  the  ignorant  but 
faithful  comrade  of  the  intelligent  but  more  weak- 
ly soldiers  drawn  from  the  factories  and  slums. 
Endowed  with  the  hereditary  courage  of  the  bull 
dog  he  attacks  the  enemy  in  front,  and  does  not 
know  when  he  is  whipped.  He  is  too  big  a  fool  to 
run  away,  and  after  he  is  prepared  as  food  for 
powder  he  dies  upon  the  battlefield  without  a  mur- 
mur. Hodge  was  not  created  by  the  removal  of 
the  strong  but  by  the  pressure  of  the  crafty  on 
the  weak.  He  is  the  victim  of  generations  of  ill 
usage  and  unceasing  labor.  Heredity  has  stamp- 
ed ignorance  upon  his  mind  and  brutal  degenera- 
tion on  his  body.  He  is  the  production  of  retro- 
gressive evolution.  This  type  is  found  in  various 
forms,  and  more  or  less  developed  in  every  rent 
ridden  country  upon  earth,  wherever  landlords  are 
privileged  by  law  to  suck  out  the  brains  and  life 
blood  of  the  people,  and  make  them  slaves  of  rent. 
The  masters  of  the  soil  have  fed  upon  his  labor 
without  shame  or  mercy,  and  have  left  him  noth- 
ing but  the  hoe  and  bare  subsistence.  He  was 
created  man,  and  has  been  made  a  brute  by  un- 
controllable social  forces.     Worse  housed  than  the 

33 


ox — stalled  like  the  ox — goaded  like  the  ox,  he 
toils  from  early  dawn  till  late  at  night.  Like  the 
ox  he  feeds  and  sleeps  only  to  be  able  to  renew  his 
labors.  Stolid  and  stunned  he  becomes  dead  to 
rapture  and  despair,  a  thing  that  grieves  not,  and 
that  never  hopes.  From  all  the  stretch  of  hell  to 
its  last  gulf,  there  is  no  shape  more  terrible,  more 
tongued  with  censure  of  the  world's  blind  greed, 
more  fraught  with  menace  to  the  peace  of  all  na- 
tions and  the  universe. 

These  then  are  faithful  descriptions  of  indus- 
trial bondage.28  A  bondage  fastened  down  by  the 
so-called  law  of  wages  tending  to  bare  subsistence 
point.  The  law  of  wages  described  by  Mill  as 
"natural,"29  the  "iron  law"  which  bears  the  in- 
dorsement of  the  very  highest  names  amongst  pro- 
fessors of  political  economy.  A  law  taught  in 
text  books,  schools,  and  universities  throughout 
the  world;  and  yet,  for  all  this,  a  law  which  has 
falsehood  and  damnation  written  on  its  very  face. 
For  it  cannot  be  denied  that  every  known  general 
law  of  nature  makes  for  more  and  better  life 
among  men,30  whilst  this,  the  creation  of  social 
agreement,  makes  for  starvation,  misery  and 
death.  The  facts  afford  the  strongest  condemna- 
tion of  the  so-called  law.  And  who  are  the  can- 
nibals who  slowly  eat  up  the  lives  and  labor  of 
the  laboring  classes?    Who  takes  the  wealth  they 

84 


individually  and  collectively  produce?    Are  they 
not  governments,   landlords,   millionaires,   trusts 
and    corporations?31    Controlled   by  these   selfish 
cormorants,  social  agreement,  by  obstructing  "ac- 
cess to  land,"  has  knocked  the  bottom  out  of  in- 
dustrial freedom,  and  is  able  to  drive  wages  down, 
down,  down,  until  the  "bare  subsistence"  point  is 
reached,  and  only  stops  there  because  death  puts  an 
end  to  further  robbery,  and  casts  upon  the  canni- 
bals the  cost  of  burial.     And  notice  the  result. 
In  England  one  and  a  half  per  cent,  of  the  adult 
population  own   eighty  per   cent,  of   the  wealth, 
while  eighty-seven  and  a    half  per  cent,  of    the 
adult  working  poor  own  only  two  per  cent.     In 
America  nine  per  cent,  of  the   adult   population 
own  seventy-one  per  cent,  of  the  wealth,  and  sixty- 
three  per  cent,  of  the  adult  working  poor  own  no 
more  than  nine  per  cent.    The  American  cannibals 
have  made  good  time  in  a  hundred  years  and  bid 
fair  soon  to  overtake  their  English  cousins.32 

Now,  the  industrial  bondage  of  civilized  human 
life  is  worse  than  that  of  chattel  slavery.  The 
slave  was,  at  least,  well  cared  for.  He  had  the 
possibility  of  escape.  There  were  lands  in  which 
he  would  be  free.  But  the  industrial  slaves  of 
modern  life  are  made  responsible  for  their  own 
existence  on  a  "bare  subsistence"  scale.  In  spite 
of  education,  in  spite  of  individual  skill  and  per- 

35 


sistent  industry  and  thrift,  not  one  in  ten  thou- 
sand can   escape.     Hundreds   of   thousands   lose 
their  health  and  lives  in  the  hopeless  struggle,  and 
leave  to  their  children  the  heritage  of  weakened 
constitutions.33     In  cities   like   London   and   New 
York  whole  streets  are  inhabited  by  adults  with 
children's  powers,  children's  ignorance,  children's 
constitutions,  earning  children's  wages,  living  on 
children's  food,  with  children's  ambitions,  and  yet 
without   children's  prospects  of   becoming  men. 
The  cannibals  have  eaten  out  the  hearts  of  such 
communities,  and  left  the  husk  to  wither  still  on 
"bare  subsistence"  law.     What  a  mockery  to  tell 
these  people,  taxed  to  death,  that  they  can  im- 
prove their  condition  by  education,  industry  and 
thrift.     There  is   no  possible   escape    from    such 
bondage.     Go    where   they   will   the   "bare   sub- 
sistence" wage  will   follow  them.     The  landlord 
will  deny  them  the  use  of  land  without  the  pay 
ment  of  his  rent.     The  capitalist,  whilst  giving  the 
"bare  subsistence"  wages,  robs  them  of  their  col- 
lective industry,  and  in  proportion  as  population 
and  civilization  grow  in  new  countries  so  does  in- 
dustrial bondage  fasten  on  the  people.     But,  as  in 
the  East,  nineteen  centuries  ago,  the  morning  star 
of  love  heralded  the  coming  of  the  Great  Prophet 
of  universal  brotherhood,  that  bond  of  co-partner- 
ship which  is  an  essential  element  of  the  law  of 

36 


human  life,  so  to-day  has  the  western  evening  star 
of  industrial  freedom  heralded  the  prophet  of  ma- 
terial prosperity  and  comfort  as  the  outcome  of 
obedience  to  the  same  great  law. 

The  prophet  of  California  has  forged  the  ham- 
mer which  shall  remove  the  fetters  of  industrial 
bondage  and  given  the  world  the  key  which  shall 
open  the  door  to  industrial  freedom.  Eidiculed  by 
professors  of  political  economy,  despised  by  mod- 
ern Scribes  and  Pharisees,  rejected  by  the  Priests 
of  Christian  churches,  and  denounced  by  ignorant 
politicians,  he  spent  a  noble  life,  and  suffered 
death  in  the  cause  of  humanity.34  But  he  brought 
glad  tidings  of  great  joy  to  suffering  millions  and 
the  people  heard  him  gladly.  Already,  after  less 
than  twenty  years,  the  gospel  of  "Single  Tax"  has 
been  preached  in  every  civilized  community,  and 
his  disciples  number  millions.35 

In  England  seven  millions  of  co-operative  and 
co-partner  workers,  the  pick  of  the  industrial  com- 
munity, are  followers  of  Henry  George.  For  years 
past  the  great  convention  of  English  laborers,  the 
most  numerous,  most  intellectual  and  most  power- 
ful labor  organization  in  the  world,  h;is  passed 
resolutions  in  favor  of  the  taxation  of  land  value 
(the  Single  Tax).  And  already  the  leading  liberal 
statesmen  are  following  suit.  John  Morley  has 
declared  that  the  taxation  of  land  value  will  be 

37 


4201.34 


an  issue  at  the  next  election.  He  is  supported  by 
Lord  Roseberry,  Sir  Wm.  Yernon  Harcourt,  Earl 
Carrington,  Professor  James  Bryce  and  the  Hon. 
Henry  Asquith.  Among  the  members  of  the  Eng- 
lish House  of  Commons  are  Billson  of  Halifax, 
Pirie  of  Aberdeen,  Sinclair  of  Forfar,  Cameron  of 
Glasgow,  McGhee  of  South  Meath,  and  Michael 
Davitt  of  Ireland,  all  of  whom  have  been  elected 
on  the  platform  of  the  Single  Tax.  In  Canada  the 
workmen's  conventions  have  annually  adopted 
"Single  Tax,"  and  Sir  Wilfred  Laurier,  the  Pre- 
mier, says  that  all  future  legislation  must  be  car- 
ried forward  on  the  line  of  the  "Single  Tax." 

And  now  curiously  Germany,  the  most  conserva- 
tive power  in  Europe,  has  established  the  Single 
Tax  as  the  only  source  of  revenue  in  the  most 
backward  country  in  the  world.  In  the  new  colony 
of  Kiautchou,  in  China,  the  Minister  of  Marine 
made  the  following  statement,  "no  colony  has  ever 
enjoyed  such  absolute  freedom  of  production  and 
trade  as  we  have  secured  to  Kiautchou.  Not  one 
single  duty  or  tax  will  be  imposed,  except  the 
taxes  on  land  values.  This  measure  has  been  dic- 
tated solely  by  politic-economical  considera- 
tions." That  the  measure  is  popular  is  proved  by 
the  petiton  presented  to  the  British  Government 
by  the  merchants,  who  are  also  land  owners  of 
Hong  Kong,  who,  led  by  Mr.  Mathieson,  proposed 

38 


the  abolition  of  all  taxes  and  the  substitution  for 
the  same  of  taxes  on  land  values. 

Even  in  America  men  like  Mr.  Thomas  G.  Sher- 
man of  New  York,  and  the  Hon.  Tom  L.  Johnson 
vie  with  that  old  veteran  of  freedom — Wm.  Lloyd 
Garrison — in  advocating  the  Single  Tax,  whilst  in 
New  Zealand  and  New  South  Wales  the  principle 
is  acknowledged  and  acted  upon  by  both  govern- 
ments. This  is  a  pretty  good  showing  for  a  theory 
founded  on  ''mere  figures  of  speech"  and  an  argu- 
ment not  worth  "a  straw's  weight."37 

THE    LAND    TAX    AND    BEER   TAX. 

We  are  now  prepared  to  discuss  the  question  of 
paying  the  running  expenses  of  government  of 
which  you  say,  "While  the  present  way  of  paying 
the  running  expenses  of  government  is  very  crude 
and  faulty,  and  while  the  'Single  Tax'  would  have 
several  advantages,  it  has  also  its  drawbacks,  and 
a  land  tax  is  no  more  God-given  than  a  beer  tax." 
But  we  have  agreed  that  it  is  not  a  question 
whether  God  favors  a  land  tax  or  a  beer  tax,  al- 
though many  would  affirm  that  a  beer  tax  would 
probably  have  the  preference.  There  is,  at  least, 
one  substantial  difference  between  them.  Land  is 
not  a  product  of  human  industry,  whilst  beer  is, 
and  this  fact  alone  may  determine  which  of  the 
two  is  the  better  subject  of  taxation.     The  real 

39 


question  is  which  will  most  equitably  distribute 
the  burden  of  taxation  among  all  the  tax  payers, 
which  will  interfere  least  with  industrial  freedom 
and  most  favor  the  same  in  the  larger  field  of  col- 
lective industry?  Which,  in  fact,  is  in  most  com- 
plete accord  with  the  general  law3S  of  human  life, 
the  only  law  which  makes  for  more  and  better  life 
among  men?39 

As  "all  men"  derive  their  independent  and  col- 
lective lives,  comforts,  necessities  and  luxuries 
from  land  it  follows  that  a  tax  on  land  value 
reaches  every  living  being  in  proportion  to  the  use 
he  makes  of  it. 

The  individual  living  and  acting  by  himself  and 
for  himself  alone,  contributes  nothing  to  land 
value,  and  is  not  called  upon  to  pay  running  ex- 
penses of  a  collective  government  in  which  he  has 
no  place,  and  of  which  he  has  no  need.40  But  as 
soon  as  a  government  is  needed  by  a  growing 
population  rent  is  created,  and  the  law  of  co- 
partnership, a  most  just  and  equitable  law,  steps 
in  to  determine  that  the  collective  product  shall 
be  set  apart  for  collective  use,  of  which  current  ex- 
penses of  government  are  a  part,  and  just  as  the 
needs  of  the  population  increase  with  increased 
population  the  fund  expands41  to  meet  their  in- 
creased common  wants.  This  seems  to  me  a  most 
wise   and   equitable   arrangement,    whereby   the 

40 


back  is  fitted  to  the  burden,  and  the  industry  of 
individuals  is  set  free  to  secure  for  themselves  the 
full  products  of  their  individual  exertion,  and  to 
pursue  happiness  by  the  gratification  of  their  in- 
tellectual and  physical  desires.  Surely  this  is  an 
arrangement  which  makes  for  more  and  better  life 
among  men.42 

On  the  other  hand,  beer  is  a  product  of  indi- 
vidual and  collective  industry.  It  requires  the  co- 
operation of  farmers,  malsters,  brewers,  coopers, 
wagoners  and  a  thousand  other  people  to  produce 
and  distribute  a  single  glass.  Eent  is  the  surplus 
of  their  collective  industry  from  which  the  single 
tax  is  paid.  Thus  beer  pays  its  proportion  of  taxa- 
tion, leaving  individual  exertion  free.  But  to  pay 
a  tax  on  beer  directly  is  a  violation  of  the  law  of 
individual  freedom  which  secures  for  every  laborer 
the  absolute  possession  and  disposal  of  the  pro- 
duct of  his  own  exertion;43  that  is,  without 
licenses,  taxation  or  other  interference  by  social 
agreement  with  the  gratification  of  individual  de- 
sires. 

Nor  is  there  any  moral  reason  for  a  beer  tax. 
Beer  has  been  adopted  by  all  civilized  nations  as  a 
drink  well  suited  to  satisfy  thirst  and  their  civiliz- 
ed desires.  It  has  been  selected  under  the  law  of 
evolution,  just  as  wheat,  rice,  meat  and  other  arti- 
cles of  diet.     It  is  not  in  use  by  the  stagnant  and 

41 


effete  nations  of  the  earth — Turks,  Arabs,  Hin- 
doos and  Chinese.  For  centuries  it  has  formed  the 
principal  drink  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  race.  Less 
than  a  hundred  years  ago,  when  tea  and  coffee 
were  but  little  known,  and  less  used,  our  ancestors 
drank  beer  for  breakfast,  beer  for  dinner,  beer  at 
supper,  and  beer  at  all  their  festivals.  It  was  in 
universal  use  by  all  who  could  afford  to  brew  or 
buy  it.  And  with  this  habit  the  race  has  colonized 
the  earth  and  become  the  leaders  of  civilization. 
But  there  are  fanatics  who  prefer  and  advocate 
Turkish  and  Chinese  abstinence.  They  say  that 
there  is  "death  in  the  pot,"  and  that  taxation  is 
calculated  to  repress  its  use  and  reduce  intoxica- 
tion. But  if  a  "beer  tax"  was  able  to  destroy 
drunkenness  and  secure  universal  sobriety,  it  still 
would  not  be  true  "that  that  which  is  best  admin- 
istered is  best"  (Jordan),  you  would  say  that  this 
is  the  maxim  of  tyrants  and  prohibitionists.  That 
the  making  of  manhood  is  more  than  the  making 
of  total  abstainers.  That  temperance,  which  is 
self-government  and  suitable  adjustment,  makes 
men  strong  to  use  all  the  products  of  human  in- 
dustry without  abusing  them,  and  it  may  be  added 
that  there  are  millions  of  human  beings  who  are 
intemperate  in  water  drinking;  millions  more  in 
sugar  eating,  and  that  there  is  no  "pot"  on  earth 
in  which  "death"  may  not  be  found  by  fools. 

42 


The  conclusion  is  inevitable.  The  "land  tax" 
conforms  in  all  its  details  with  the  general  law  of 
human  life,  which  makes  for  more  and  better  life 
among  men.     And   the  tax  on  beer  is   robbery.44 

INDTJSTBIAL    BTJCCANEEBS    AND    INDUSTBIAL 
FEUDALISM. 

Now,  we  have  seen  that  co-operation  in  produc- 
tion and  distribution  and  co-partnership  in  the 
product  and  surplus  created  by  co-operation  are 
essentially  complementary  elements  of  the  law  of 
collective  human  life,  and  that  in  consequence  of 
the  intimate  connection  between  land  and  labor 
the  larger  part  of  this  surplus  is  taken  by  land- 
lords in  the  form  of  rent.  But  a  little  considera- 
tion will  show  that  only  the  larger  part  goes  in 
that  direction.  With  a  few  honorable  exceptions 
where  the  employers  of  collective  labor,  besides 
paying  wages,  divide  the  profits  with  their  work- 
men, all  such  employers  take  the  collective  sur- 
plus to  themselves;45  thus,  in  making  a  contract  for 
building  a  house,  the  contractor  makes  an  estimate 
of  the  cost.  He  estimates  all  kinds  of  labor  at  the 
market  price,  including  his  own  services  and  risks, 
the  costs  of  materials,  the  interest  on  the  capital 
required  to  provide  the  tools,  transportation,  etc.; 
and,  when  every  necessity  has  been  estimated,  he 
adds  a  percentage  to  the  wages  of  every  work- 

43 


man,  which,  in  fact,  is  the  surplus  value  of  their 
collective  industry.  It  is  in  this  way  that  gigantic 
fortunes  have  been  made  in  building  railroads, 
public  buildings,  and  public  and  private  works  of 
all  kinds. 

Thus  the  law  of  co-partnership  is  evaded,  and 
the  surplus  of  collective  industry  seized  by  capital- 
ists and  employers,  who  are  the  buccaneers  of  in- 
dustry.46 Considering  the  vast  number  and  im- 
portance of  establishments  of  collective  labor  it 
is  no  wonder  that  contractors,  manufacturers  and 
employers  become  millionaires;  and  is  it  any  won- 
der that  they  seek  to  extend  their  control  of 
laborers  by  the  establishment  of  trusts?  Social 
agreement  calls  this  enterprise,  business,  superior 
ability  to  organize  labor;  but  is  it  not  a  taking  ad- 
vantage of  the  ignorance  of  the  laboring  classes, 
who  are  taught  to  believe  that  wages  are  all  they 
are  entitled  to,  and  that  they  have  no  part  in  the 
product  of  their  combined  exertion?47  Is  it  not,  in 
fact,  robbery?48  Robbery  of  the  same  fund  which 
goes  to  the  landlord  grabbing  mill?  The  robbery 
of  that  wealth  which  individuals  cannot  create  by 
their  individual  exertion,  but  which  is  a  necessary 
outcome  of  their  collective  industry. 

Now,  experiment  proves  that  co-partnership  and 
co-operation  make  for  more  and  better  life  among 
men.49     There  are  to-day  in  Great  Britain   seven 

44 


millions  of  its  population,  more  or  less,  engaged  in 
co-operation  and  co-partnership.  A  picked  seventh 
of  the  population  doing  a  business,  manufacturing 
included,  of  272  millions  of  dollars  a  year,  with  a 
bank  of  their  own  with  deposits  of  sixteen  (16) 
millions,  and  turning  over  two  hundred  millions 
(200,000,000)  in  trade.     Many  years  ago  I  heard 
Robert  Owen  lecture  on  industrial  co-operation 
and  co-partnership;  his  first  attempt  was  a  griev- 
ous  failure,  but   he  was   followed   by  Holyoake, 
Kingsley,  Maurice,  Tom  Hughes,  Vansittart  Neal, 
Ripon,  Ludlow,   Godin   and   Leclair,   and   to-day 
there  is  scarcely  a  town  in  England  without  a  co- 
operative store  for  distribution;  and  some  of  the 
largest  and  finest  factories  there  and  in  the  world 
are  now  owned  and  managed  exclusively  by  work- 
ing men,  in  the  interest  of  the  working  men  em- 
ployed.    For  further  evidence  I  would  refer  you 
to  the  recently  published  account  of  Labor  Co- 
partnership, by  Mr.  Henry  Demorest  Lloyd,  who 
says,  "that  industrial  democracy  can  become  a  fact 
whenever  the  people  will    it."50     The  desire   for 
property  is  universal,  and  the  aptitude  to  manage 
it  like  "honor  and  fame  from  no  conditions  rise." 
Property,  business  and  capital  will  never  be  prop- 
erly managed  until  the  entire  people  have  a  share 
in  management,  ownership  and  results. 

From  this  it  is  evident  that  the  law  which  ap- 

45 


plies  to  government  applies  to  collective  industry, 
viz.,  that  no  individual  action  can,  by  any  possi- 
bility, replace  the  concerted  action  of  the  people 
(Jordan).  Nor  is  the  moral  effect  of  co-operation 
and  co-partnership  less  remarkable.  Kalahine 
was  a  farm  in  the  midst  of  one  of  the  most  tur- 
bulent districts  in  Ireland,  where  the  people  were 
ragged,  hungry,  lawless,  and  the  lives  of  landlord 
and  steward  were  in  deadly  peril.  The  owner  was 
compelled  to  fly,  and  he  left  his  estate  in  the  hands 
of  Mr.  E.  T.  Craig,  who  explained  to  the  laborers 
that  henceforth  they  were  to  be  their  own  masters; 
divide  the  work  amongst  themselves,  and  all  share 
in  the  produce.  The  very  ringleaders  of  previous 
disorder  became  the  best  workers.  A  commercial 
system  of  life  was  adopted;  the  people  went  into 
associated  homes.  They  worked  well  and  success- 
fully. A  co-operative  store  was  opened,  and  labor 
notes  were  issued  in  the  place  of  money.  In  three 
years  the  people  became  wonderfully  changed. 
They  left  off  drinking;  they  kept  their  homes 
clean;  they  paid  the  rent;  disorder  and  violence 
ceased,  intemperance  became  almost  unknown. 
All  had  earned  more  than  was  paid  by  neighbor- 
ing farmers,  and  the  incident  which  was  termi- 
nated by  the  bankruptcy  of  the  proprietor  remains 
a  splendid  illustration  of  what  can  be  accomplish- 


46 


ed  when  the  principle  of  brotherhood  is  appealed 
to. 

THE   EVIDENCE    OF    RESULTS. 

Although  I  most  strenuously  object  to  the  posi- 
tion that  a  question  of  justice  is  only  truly  deter- 
mined by  results,  I  can  have  no  objection  to  in- 
quire if  the  single  tax  "has  been  tried,  if  it  works, 
and  if  its  results  on  individual  and  social  develop- 
ment are  better  than  those  attained  through  other 
forms  of  land  tenure  or  of  taxation,"  and  the  less 
because  the  comparison  is  with  forms  which  have 
utterly  failed  to  secure  good  results,  and  which  no 
one  pretends  are  founded  on  the  principle  of 
justice  between  man  and  man. 

Now,  it  must  be  freely  admitted  that  although 
the  Single  Tax  was  clearly  promulgated  by  the 
French  Physiocrats  more  than  one  hundred  years 
ago,  it  has  never  yet  been  adopted  in  its  entirety 
by  any  nation.  On  close  examination,  however, 
we  shall  find  much  evidence  that  its  principle  per- 
vades many  customs  and  much  legislation,  and 
that  in  so  far  it  has  produced  the  best  results.  As 
the  cardinal  principle  of  the  Single  Tax  lies  in  rent 
and  its  distribution,  it  will  be  desirable  to  exam- 
ine the  various  methods  of  dealing  with  rent,  con- 
trasting the  effects  upon  the  welfare  of  individuals 
and  the  community  at  large. 

First,  we  have  landlords  pure  and  simple,  en- 

47 


dowed  with  all  the  privileges  of  private  owner- 
ship, who  take  all  the  rent,  choose  their  tenants, 
and  discharge  them  when  they  please.  They  have 
power  to  take  all  the  traffic  will  bear,  leaving  the 
tenant  nothing  but  a  bare  subsistence,  and  in 
special  cases  not  even  that. 

The  evil  results  of  this  limited  rent  distribution 
are  seen  in  Ireland.  It  is  unnecessary  to  describe 
the  frightful  condition  to  which  the  Irish  people 
were  reduced  about  fifty  years  ago.  Thousands 
died  of  starvation  and  disease,  while  millions  were 
evicted  from  their  miserable  shanties  and  forced  to 
emigrate.  At  length  the  conditions  became  so  in- 
tolerable that  a  parliament  of  landlords  was  com- 
pelled to  interfere,  and  to  establish  the  Inalienable 
right  of  the  inhabitants  to  live  upon  their  native 
soil  before  anything  was  paid  to  landlords.  The 
power  to  evict  was  taken  from  them,  and  under 
the  operation  of  the  courts  rents  have  been  re- 
duced more  than  one  half,  and  the  re-distribution 
of  rent  has  greatly  improved  the  condition  of  the 
people.  The  Irish  are  to-day  more  prosperous  and 
more  contented  than  for  centuries. 

In  the  next  place,  all  the  privileges  of  full 
ownership  may  be  exercised  by  corporations. 
These  may  be  even  worse  than  landlords  because 
they  are  totally  devoid  of  human  sympathy.  But 
when  corporations  are  municipal  and  manage  pub- 

48 


lie  property,  the  rents  are  applied  to  provide  for 
city  needs. 

In  Freudenstadt,  a  town  of  1500  inhabitants, 
there  is  no  taxation.  The  public  revenue  is  de- 
rived from  royalties,  rents,  and  other  natural 
sources  of  wealth  attaching  to  the  town  and  neigh- 
borhood. The  revenue  has  always  exceeded  the 
expenditure.  There  are  neither  paupers  in  the 
community  nor  unemployed.  On  one  occasion  re- 
cently there  was  divided  among  the  inhabitants 
men,  women  and  children,  a  sum  amounting  to 
$13.55  per  capita.  In  England  many  municipal 
corporations  either  inherit  it  or  have  acquired 
land  in  the  center  of  their  cities.  Old  buildings 
have  been  torn  down,  new  streets  have  been  con- 
structed, and  the  land  rented  out  on  lease.  In  a 
few  years  the  rents  of  such  properties  will  relieve 
the  citizens  of  much  taxation. 

In  the  next  place,  the  relation  between  owner 
and  occupier  may  be  determined  by  custom  or  by 
law,  as  under  the  feudal  system,  under  which  the 
relation  between  lord  and  villein  was  definitely 
fixed,  if  not  always  faithfully  kept.  As  the  lord 
acknowledged  his  fealty  to  the  king  by  personal 
service  or  the  presentation  of  a  pair  of  spurs,  so 
the  villein  secured  the  protection  of  his  lord  by  so 
many  days  of  personal  service  or  so  much  produce, 
and,  having  rendered  his  dues  with  punctuality,  he 

49 


was  left  in  peaceful  occupation  of  his  holding,  and 
undisturbed  possession  of  any  surplus  products 
which  he  might  thereafter  raise  by  his  own  in- 
dustry. Thorold  Rogers  has  fully  described  the 
comfortable  and  happy  condition  of  the  English 
peasants  before  the  introduction  of  landlordism, 
and  the  frightful  economic  pressure  which  imme- 
diately ensued.  The  land  then,  for  the  first  time 
in  England,  was  treated  as  private  property,  and 
the  occupiers  were  evicted  because  they  were  un- 
able to  pay  interest  on  the  purchase  money.  The 
Hon.  Joseph  Leggett  has  shown  that  the  same 
causes  have  produced  similar  results  in  California. 
For  the  first  twenty-five  years  after  the  first  set- 
tlement land  was  open,  and,  except  in  cities,  was 
cheap.  The  pressure  of  rent  was  very  little  felt, 
land  was  abundant,  and  the  people  few  and  con- 
tented. But  when  all  the  productive  land  was 
taken  up,  some  for  profit,  more  for  speculation, 
rents  began  to  rise  and  wages  fall,  for  while  land- 
lords exist  laborers  cannot  appropriate  both. 
Then  economic  pressure  began  to  appear,  the  rich 
became  richer,  and  the  poor  poorer.  Then  ap- 
peared armies  of  tramps  and  thieves,  and  the  in- 
dependence of  thousands  was  destroyed. 

In  the  next  place,  the  multiplication  of  indi- 
vidual owners  results  in  diffusion  of  the  rent,  and 
has  chiefly  occurred  in  France,  through  the  opera- 

60 


tion  of  the  code  of  Napoleon;  but  the  benefits  of 
rent  diffusion  are  obscured  and  neutralized  by  ex- 
cessive military  service  and  heavy  industrial  taxa- 
tion. Nevertheless,  one  remarkable  result  has 
been  attained;  the  food  production  of  France  has 
increased  in  the  last  century  fifteen  times  faster 
than  the  growth  of  population,  a  practical  proof 
that  the  so-called  law  of  Malthus  is  not  absolute. 

In  the  next  place,  permanent  occupiers  may  also 
be  part  owners,  portions  of  rent  being  assigned  to 
other  persons  on  definite  terms  fixed  by  law.  This 
form  of  land  tenure  has  been  in  operation  in  the 
Channel  Islands  for  a  thousand  years.  The  island 
of  Jersey  has  never  been  subject  to  the  Roman 
law,  and  therefore,  there  are  still  no  landlords. 
The  escape  from  landlordism  was  probably  due  to 
the  poverty  of  the  soil,  which,  until  lately,  was  not 
able  to  support  the  inhabitants,  much  less  to  yield 
a  surplus  for  the  payment  of  rent.  In  the  seven- 
teenth century,  as  may  be  seen  from  the  first  edi- 
tion of  Falle's  Jersey  (1694),  the  island  did  not  pro- 
duce the  quantity  of  food  required  by  the  inhabi- 
tants, who  were  supplied  from  England  in  time  of 
peace,  and  from  Dantzig  in  time  of  war.  In  the 
groans  of  the  inhabitants  of  Jersey  we  find  the 
same  complaint.  And  Quale,  in  1812,  stated  that 
the  quantity  of  food  was  quite  inadequate  to  their 
sustenance,   apart    from   the    English   garrison. 

61 


After  making,  says  he,  all  allowances,  the  truth 
must  be  told,  the  grain  crops  are  foul,  in  some  in- 
stances execrably  so.  We  learn  also  from  recent 
writers  that  the  soil  is  by  no  means  rich.  It  is  a 
decomposed  granite,  without  organic  matter,  be- 
sides what  man  has  put  into  it,  There  are  also 
seventy  acres  of  an  Arabian  desert  of  sands  and 
hillocks,  with  very  poor  soil  on  the  north  and 
west  of  it.  Nor  is  the  climate  as  favorable  as 
might  have  been  expected.  There  is  an  absence 
of  sun-heat  in  summer,  a  remarkable  prevalence  of 
Jersey  fogs,  bringing  mildew  and  blight  in  au- 
tumn, and  much  dry,  cold,  east  wind,  retarding 
vegetation  in  spring. 

Land  in  Jersey  has  been  held  for  centuries  in 
small  lots  of  a  few  acres.  In  the  whole  island 
there  are  not  more  than  six  farms  of  more  than 
twenty-five  acres,  and  upon  these  the  celebrated 
Jersey  cows  are  raised.  The  owner  of  the  lot  is 
permitted  by  law  and  custom  to  issue  "rents"  to 
the  extent  of  three-fourths  of  the  value  of  the  hold- 
ing. These  "rents"  represent  a  small  proportion 
of  the  crop  of  wheat  as  raised  a  thousand  years 
ago,  when  the  soil  was  even  more  barren  than  at 
the  beginning  of  this  century,  and  the  art  of  agri- 
culture was  much  less  advanced.  So  faithfully 
has  this  custom  been  preserved  that  the  money 
payment  equivalent  to  that  small   modicum  of 

52 


wheat  secures  to  the  occupier  permanence  of  occu- 
pation. The  possession  of  land  is  therefore  abso- 
lutely safe  to  every  cultivator,  and  cannot  easily 
be  alienated.  To  seize  land  for  debt  is  accom- 
panied with  so  many  difficulties  that  it  is  seldom 
resorted  to.  The  part  owner  and  occupier  cannot 
be  compelled,  as  in  the  case  of  mortgage,  to  re- 
fund the  principal.  The  laws  of  inheritance  are 
also  such  as  to  preserve  the  homestead  to  the 
children,  notwithstanding  all  or  any  debts  the 
father  may  have  incurred  before  his  death.  Cus- 
tom provides  also  that  the  purchaser  for  cultiva- 
tion undertakes  to  pay  only  a  capitalized  one- 
fourth  of  the  total  rent,  and  he  often  pays  less; 
people  are  thus  able  to  buy  land  for  cultivation 
with  very  little  capital,  and  the  cost  of  conveyance 
is  almost  nothing.  As  there  are  no  landlords  on 
the  island,  there  is  no  one  to  watch  the  crops,  or 
raise  the  rent,  no  one  to  fix  the  terms  of  lease,  no 
one  to  dictate  the  course  of  cropping,  no  one  to 
raise  the  rent  as  population  grows,  every  tiller  of 
the  soil  is  his  own  master,  and  occupies  his  little 
holding  without  interference  from  any  one.  While 
every  occupier  is  an  independent  owner  there  are 
hundreds  of  other  citizens  who  have  an  interest  in 
rent,  but  without  power  to  distrain  for  non-pay- 
ment of  the  principal.  Here  then  we  have  a  clear 
recognition  of  the  principle  that  rent  belongs  to 

53 


the  people,  and  a  rough  and  unscientific  method 
of  distributing  it  among  the  population.  In  fact, 
the  Norman  custom  is  an  imperfect  Single  Tax. 

Other  common  privileges  have  also  been  careful- 
ly preserved.  Every  one  is  at  liberty  to  gather  sea- 
weed for  manure  at  a  certain  season  of  the  year, 
and  to  dig  sand  at  a  distance  of  sixty  feet  from 
high  water-mark. 

And  now  let  us  notice  the  result.  The  island  is 
eight  miles  long  and  less  than  six  miles  wide;  it 
comprises  28,707  acres,  rocks  included.  There  are 
1300  inhabitants  to  the  square  mile,  or  two  to 
every  acre,  and,  besides  providing  their  own  food, 
they  now  annually  export  |250  worth  of  produce 
from  every  cultivated  acre.  In  1894  they  export- 
ed 60,605  tons  of  potatoes,  grown  on  7,007  acres, 
and  for  these  they  received  about  $2,300,000.  They 
also  exported  1600  head  of  cattle,  chiefly  cows,  bulls 
and  horses,  and  many  tons  of  tomatoes,  pears, 
.salads  and  other  produce.  This  success  is  entirely 
due  to  the  amount  of  labor  which  a  dense  popula- 
tion is  putting  on  the  land.  The  fertility  of  the 
soil  has  been  created  by  the  industry  of  the  in- 
habitants; it  has  been  fertilized  not  only  by  sand 
and  seaweed  but  with  refuse  of  all  kinds,  inclusive 
of  animal  manures,  city  waste,  stable  manure, 
bones  shipped  from  Plevna,  and  mummies  of  cats 
from  Egypt.     The  ground  is  artificially  warmed 


by  the  application  of  fermenting  matters,  and  hot 
water  pipes.  An  artificial  climate  has  been  created 
by  the  construction  of  acres  of  glass  roofing,  and 
the  growth  of  the  crops  is  promoted  by  the  scien- 
tific manufacture  of  soils,  the  careful  selection  of 
seeds,  and  frequent  replanting  of  the  plants. 
These  people  realize  the  fact  that  it  is  easier  and 
more  profitable  to  raise  ten  tons  of  potatoes  from 
three  acres  than  it  is  from  thirty.  As  there  are 
no  landlords  the  whole  of  the  profit  is  distributed 
among  the  producers  and  the  large  number  of  per- 
sons interested  in  rent.  It  would  be  strange,  in- 
deed, if  the  Jersey  islanders,  densely  crowded  as 
they  are,  were  not  among  the  happiest,  most  pros- 
perous, and  most  contented  people  in  the  world, 
which  is  the  conclusion  of  every  one  who  visits 
them.  There  is  no  poverty,  except  that  which  is 
personally  produced;  no  pauperism;  no  unem- 
ployed; very  little  dishonesty  or  crime. 

Here  then  we  have  positive  proof  that  economic 
pressure  is  caused  by  landlords,  and  that  it  will  be 
relieved  by  the  Single  Tax. 

And  now  turn  to  cases  where  the  tax  on  land 
values  has  been  recently  imposed.  In  New  Zea- 
land, the  Legislature  of  1891  imposed  a  graduated 
tax  on  land  values,  the  lowest  being  .04  per  cent. 
For  twenty  years  previously  the  country  passed 
through  a  period  of  fearful  commercial  depression. 

55 


It  was  overwhelmingly  in  debt,  and  the  popula- 
tion was  decreasing  at  the  rate  of  twenty  thou- 
sand a  year.  After  the  adoption  of  this  form  of 
taxation  prosperity  immediately  returned,  popula- 
tion began  to  increase,  and  the  annual  increase  is 
now  greater  than  the  annual  decrease  before  the 
passage  of  the  act.  United  States  Consul  Connolly 
says  of  New  Zealand,  that  it  is  now  the  most  pro- 
gressive country  upon  earth.  That  the  private 
wealth  of  the  people  has  increased  over  forty  per 
cent.,  which  is  double  the  increase  of  population. 

After  five  years'  experience  the  New  Zealand 
government  extended  the  method  of  taxation  to 
those  municipalities  which  should  choose  it  in 
preference  to  the  older  plan.  Twenty  municipali- 
ties have  voted  in  its  favor,  and  it  is  remarkable 
that  the  reform  has  been  carried  by  the  vote  of 
property  owners,  and  not  by  equal  suffrage. 

In  1895,  the  Legislature  of  New  South  Wales, 
having  been  thoroughly  convinced  of  the  success- 
ful reforms  in  New  Zealand,  passed  a  law  abolish- 
ing all  taxation  on  personal  property  and  improve- 
ments, and  levying  four  milles  on  the  dollar  on 
land  value  instead.  Prior  to  the  passage  of  the 
law  the  financial  condition  of  the  country  verged 
on  bankruptcy,  and  the  people  suffered  great  pri- 
vation. One-half  of  the  land  was  owned  by  less 
than  one  thousand  people.     900,000   souls,  men, 

56 


women,  and  children,  had  not  land  enough  in 
which  to  dig  their  graves.  Immediately  the  large 
land  speculators  became  alarmed.  An  English 
syndicate,  which  had  acquired  many  thousand 
acres,  put  them  on  the  market.  Many  large  es- 
tates of  100,000  acres  were  readily  disposed  of  in 
small  lots,  and  in  1897  the  increased  area  of  land 
under  cultivation  was  already  311,500  acres. 

Landlordism  still  flourishes  in  the  adjoining 
colony  of  Victoria,  where  the  population  is  about 
the  same,  and  where  there  is  a  high  protective 
tariff.  The  contrast  is  convincing.  In  Victoria 
there  are  employed,  in  various  trades,  37,779  males 
and  12,669  females.  But  in  New  South  Wales 
there  are  employed  50,883  males,  and  only  6,689 
females.  For  every  ten  ships  docked  and  repair- 
ed in  Victoria  there  are  seventy  in  New  South 
Wales.  The  deep  sea  ships  in  tb^  Victoria  har- 
bors number  between  twenty  and  thirty,  while  in 
New  South  Wales  they  number  between  ninety  • 
and  one  hundred.  During  a  period  of  years,  5180 
more  men  left  Victoria  than  arrived,  while  New 
South  Wales  attracted  192,184  more  than  those 
who  left.  In  New  South  Wales,  both  artisan  and 
unskilled  laborers  are  feeling  the  advantage  of 
better  times.  The  supply  of  workers  is  less  than 
the  demand,  and  the  employee  is  the  arbiter  of 
his  own  compensation.     In  no  other  period  has  the 

57 


value  of  imports  been  so  great,  its  manufacturing 
output  so  large,  and  general  prices  and  wages  so 
satisfactory  as  during  the  two  years  just  passed. 
The  Premier  said,  on  a  recent  occasion,  small  as 
the  change  has  been,  it  has  secured  to  the  country 
for  all  time  a  good,  sound  principle  of  taxation, 
and  it  has  killed  the  trade  of  the  land  gambler. 
In  1901  tariff  on  imports  will  entirely  cease. 

A  most  remarkable  experiment  with  the  Single 
Tax  was  made  at  Hyattsville,  Md.  In  1892  the 
town  commissioners,  believing  they  had  power  un- 
der the  town  charter,  decided  to  assess  land  values 
only,  so  they  abolished  all  taxation  on  improve- 
ments and  personal  property.  In  order  to  meet 
the  loss  of  revenue  the  tax  on  land  value  was 
raised  from  fifteen  to  twenty-five  cents  on  the  hun- 
dred dollars.  The  effect  was  to  reduce  the  taxa- 
tion of  householders  forty-four  per  cent.,  and  to 
raise  the  balance  of  sixty  per  cent,  on  land  held  for 
speculation  and  not  for  use.  The  effect  was  imme- 
diately beneficial;  it  lightened  the  burden  of  those 
most  worthy  of  consideration.  It  promoted  the 
improvement  of  property,  the  erection  of  new 
buildings  and  the  employment  of  the  people. 
There  was  no  difficulty  in  the  application  of  the 
sj^stem.  The  land  speculators,  however,  set  up 
violent  opposition,  and  took  the  matter  into  the 
courts;  and,  it  being  declared  unconstitutional, 

58 


the  town  was  compelled  to  return  to  the  old  sys- 
tem.    All  building  immediately  came  to   an  end 
when  the  land  speculators  resumed  their  sway. 
These  results  are  all  in  favor  of  the  Single  Tax. 

THE    UNIVERSITIES   AND    THE    LAW   OF   HUMAN 
LIFE. 

It  is  the  special  function  of  universities  to  ex- 
amine and  illustrate  those  general  laws  which  con- 
trol the  operations  of  the  universe.  To  teach 
their  order,  correlation,  beauty,  adaptability  to 
surrounding  conditions,  their  sufficiency  and  per- 
fection, their  justice  and  morality,  and  to  show 
how  completely  and  surely  they  make  for  more 
and  better  life  among  men,  whilst  the  least  viola- 
tion or  neglect  makes  of  necessity  for  starvation, 
misery  and  death. 

Are  the  universities  of  America  fulfilling  their 
duties  with  respect  to  the  law  of  human  life?  They 
seem  ready  and  willing  to  acknowledge  the  value 
of  intellectual  and  personal  freedom,  but  have 
they  put  industrial  freedom  on  an  equal  footing?51 
It  would  seem  not;  nay,  rather  are  they  not  fol- 
lowing the  practices  of  the  European  universities 
of  the  last  century?  And  just  as  those  universities 
directed  all  their  efforts  to  restrain  intellectual 
and  scientific  freedom,  so  now  those  of  America 
are  using  their  great  powers  to  strangle  industrial 

59 


freedom.  None  of  these  institutions,  whose  office 
is  to  extend  the  range  of  freedom,  offer  a  protest 
against  the  artificial  privilege  of  landlords.  None 
are  protesting  against  industrial  feudalism,  which 
is  industrial  tyranny.  They  have  nothing  to  say 
on  the  absolute  necessity  of  co-partnership  in  the 
results  of  collective  labor  as  the  only  possible  pro- 
tection against  the  rapacity  of  governments,  mil- 
lionaires, trusts  and  corporations.  They  have 
failed  to  demonstrate  the  wickedness  and  folly  of 
taxing  individual  industry  as  if  it  were  a  crime  to 
work  and  create  wealth. 

They  seem  to  sanction  all  those  methods  of  taxa- 
tion which  bring  lying  and  dishonesty  in  their 
train,  and  enable  the  rich  to  shift  the  burden  on 
the  poor.  Common  sense  should  tell  them  that 
all  such  methods  make  for  starvation,  misery  and 
death,  and  that  absolute  obedience  to  the  law  of 
human  life  alone  makes  for  more  and  better  life 
among  men.52  In  this,  its  first  duty,  the  Univer- 
sity of  California,  like  those  of  America  generally, 
is  a  grievous  failure,  and  even  Stanford,  the  most 
liberal,  is  by  no  means  innocent. 

It  is  significant  that  you  should  have  so  griev- 
ously misapprehended  Mr.  George's  argument. 
That  you  should  charge  him  with  scientific  igno- 
rance possibly  without  having  read  his  last  great 
scientific  work.    That  you  should  find  his  premises 

60 


faulty  and  founded  on  figures  of  speech,  when  they 
are  based  on  simple  self-evident  facts.  That  you 
should  say  that  he  takes  out  at  the  end  only  that 
which  he  puts  in  at  the  beginning,  while  in  reality 
he  puts  in  the  beginning  the  simple  facts  of  human 
life,  and  in  justice  between  man  and  man  takes  out 
the  Single  Tax. 

That  you  should  regard  his  argument  as  not 
worth  a  straw's  weight,  whereas  it  involves  the 
foundation  of  all  human  progress.  It  is  no  won- 
der that  his  last  and  greatest  work  on  the  "Science 
of  Political  Economy"  is  not  in  the  Stanford  li- 
brary; and  that  the  law  of  human  life  should  be 
utterly  ignored  in  the  class-rooms,  and  is  replaced 
by  a  study  of  the  dreams  of  the  French  physiocrats 
of  the  last  century;  and  this  not  for  the  purpose 
of  picking  out  from  all  their  writings  those  grains 
of  wheat,  the  "produit  net"  and  "impot  unique," 
and  of  illustrating  these  grains  of  truth  with  the 
assistance  of  Mr.  George's  wisdom,  but  with  the 
certain  result  that,  without  that  wisdom,  the  stu- 
dents' intellects  will  be  buried  in  the  mass  of  chaff. 
And  lastly,  it  seems  to  me  incomprehensible  that 
you  should  rely  upon  that  inscrutable,  uncertain, 
weak,  mythical  principle,  "social  agreement,"  as 
the  authority  for  what  is  "right"  when  you  have 
before  you  a  simple  law  of  nature  which  makes 
for  more  and  better  life  among  men,  and  the  small- 

61 


est  neglect  of  which  makes  for  starvation,  misery 
and  death. 

It  is  painful  to  write  these  facts,  but  for  you 
"truth"  has  no  terrors,  no  humiliations,  and  it  is 
necessary  to  probe  to  the  bottom  of  the  wound  in 
order  to  effect  a  cure. 

But  this  neglect  of  Mr.  George's  doctrine  is  the 
more  remarkable  at  Stanford,  because  here,  as 
always,  interest  is  co-incident  with  obedience  to 
natural  law  and  duty.  The  Stanford  estates  suffer 
most  grievously  from  the  unjust  system  of  taxation 
now  in  force,  and  from  which  there  is  but  little 
hope  of  relief,  except  by  the  adoption  of  the  "Sin- 
gle Tax,"  under  which  no  rent  can  be  taken  from 
land  in  public  use,  of  which  the  most  important  is 
the  promotion  of  higher  education.  Rent  taken 
away  from  such  an  institution  is  the  worst  form  of 
robbery,  and  there  is  no  possible  excuse  for  it  un- 
der the  operation  of  the  "Single  Tax."  It  is  true 
that  the  appropriation  of  land  to  public  use  is  only 
a  restoration  of  what  belongs  to  the  people,  but 
this  restoration  was  none  the  less  a  royal  gift 
made  by  the  founders  of  the  Stanford  University.53 
By  it  they  renounced  forever  their  artificial  right 
as  landlords,  and  gave  back  to  the  community  that 
which  the  community  had  earned.  But  they  did 
more,  for  they  carried  out  the  principle  of  the 
"Single  Tax"  to  its  uttermost  point,  and  did,  by 

62 


the  stroke  of  the  pen,  that  which  elsewhere  must 
take  many,  many  years  to  accomplish;  and  verily 
they  shall  have  their  reward,  for  the  arrangement 
cannot  be  upset,  and  as  the  years  roll  by,  and  the 
population  shall  increase,  the  resources  of  the 
University  are  bound  to  grow  in  proportion  to  its 
need.  What  glory,  what  honor  shall  attach  for- 
ever to  such  unselfish  fulfillment  of  a  general  law 
as  yet  not  recognized? 

CONCLUSIONS. 

In  the  foregoing  I  have  endeavored  to  keep  the 
main  argument  clear,  short,  and  to  the  point.  As 
Mr.  George  says,  "We  cannot  if  we  would,  we 
should  not  if  we  could,  eschew  the  use  of  meta- 
phor, but  in  questions  of  political  economy  it  is 
necessary  to  base  all  metaphors  on  facts."54 

I  have  shown  that  human  life,  happiness  and 
progress  depend  upon  the  complete  and  faithful 
observance  of  the  general  law  of  independent  and 
collective  life.  That  this  law  is  violated  by  the 
enactments  and  practices  of  social  agreement, 
which  cannot  be  accepted  as  an  authority  for 
"right."55  That  the  violation  of  the  general  law 
of  human  life,  even  in  the  least  particular,  makes 
for  starvation,  misery  and  death.  That  the  crea- 
tion by  social  agreement  of  an  artificial  landlord 
class,  endowed  with   power   to    deny  "access   to 

63 


land,"  is  destructive  of  industrial  freedom,  and 
that  the  appropriation  of  the  product  of  collective 
industry  by  landlords,  millionaires,  trusts,  cor- 
porations and  individual  employers  is  robbery. 
That  co-operation  in  production  and  co-partner- 
ship in  the  collective  result  are  essential  elements 
of  the  law  of  collective  human  life.  That  the  la- 
borer to  be  really  free  must  attain  to  self-employ- 
ment as  an  individual,  and  self-government  as  a 
member  of  the  collective  body,  sharing  in  the  pro- 
fits and  management  not  as  a  favor  but  a  right, 
sanctioned  by  the  law  of  human  life.  That  the 
taxation  of  individual  industry  is  a  violation  of 
the  law  of  individual  freedom,  and  the  final  con- 
clusion is  that  the  "Single  Tax"  on  land  value, 
which  is  created  by  the  collective  activities  and 
necessities  of  the  whole  community,  is  the  source 
provided  by  the  law  of  human  life  for  the  satisfac- 
tion of  the  common  wants,  no  one  being  called 
upon  to  suffer  loss  individually  on  account  of  pub- 
lic need. 

As  under  the  "Single  Tax"  no  one  will  care  to 
have  land  except  for  possession  and  profitable  use, 
millions  of  acres  will  be  opened  to  the  people. 
There  will  no  longer  be  need  to  camp  out  for  weeks 
upon  the  borders  of  land  open  to  occupation.  No 
longer  need  to  fight  and  race  and  struggle  for 
whereon  to  live,  for  "free  access"  will  become  a 

64 


fact,  and  free  materials  will  everywhere  be  found 
at  the  disposal  of  collective  life. 

Lastly,  the  law  of  independent  and  collective 
human  life  is  the  only  complete  and  absolute 
basis  of  economics.  It  defines  the  origin  of  indi- 
vidual and  collective  wealth,  and  determines  the 
rights  of  the  respective  owners  in  its  distribution. 
It  makes  impossible  the  formation  of  trusts  and 
combinations,  which,  under  the  pretense  of  better 
organization  of  capital  and  labor,  and  the  promise 
of  cheaper  production,  rob  the  producers  of  their 
individual  and  collective  earnings.  It  gives  the 
land  and  its  natural  resources  to  the  whole  people 
by  the  operation  of  the  Single  Tax,  and  thus  de- 
stroys monopolies  at  their  very  roots;  in  fine,  it 
makes  for  more  and  better  life  among  men,  and 
becomes  a  safe  guide  for  statesmen,  governments 
and  professors  of  political  economy  throughout 
the  world. 

AN    INDUSTBIAL    UTOPIA. 

You  have  wisely  told  your  students  that  the 
Utopian  element  is  one  which  our  lives  sorely 
need.  That  we  have  fought  the  devil  long  enough 
with  fire.  That  we  have  attempted  good  results 
by  evil  means  (social  agreement,  expediency,  im- 
perialism, landlords,  trusts,  bare  subsistence 
wages,   industrial  taxation,   licenses,   franchises, 

65 


and  other  special  privileges,  tariff  and  other  inter- 
ferences with  the  law  of  independent  human  life) ; 
that  unless  our  souls  dwell  in  Utopia,  life  is  not 
worth  the  keeping;  that  our  windows  should  look 
toward  Heaven,  not  the  gutter.  Now,  with  the 
help  of  the  general  law  of  human  life  it  does  not 
seem  difficult  to  construct  an  industrial  Utopia, 
which  being  the  foundation  of  life  is  also  the  foun- 
dation of  all  human  progress.57  Let  us  suppose  the 
creation  of  a  huge  industrial  corporation  to  ex- 
ploit the  earth.  To  become  a  shareholder  it  is 
only  necessary  to  be  a  human  being,  endowed  with 
intelligence  and  strength,  who  pledges  his  labor 
in  return  for  life  and  the  satisfaction  of  his  wants. 
Every  worker  getting  his  wages  according  to  the 
law  of  supply  and  demand,  and  those  special  con- 
ditions which  determine  the  value  of  the  service 
rendered.  If  but  little  service,  bare  subsistence; 
if  more,  comfort,  leisure  and  the  gratification  of 
desires;  if  great,  and  rendered  to  the  corporation, 
honor,  glory,  repose  and  luxury. 

The  charter  of  this  corporation  is  the  law  of  in- 
dependent and  collective  human  life,  as  laid  down 
in  the  foregoing  pages.  Every  individual  must  be 
free  to  think,  to  act,  and  to  assist  in  the  business 
of  the  corporation,  the  exploitation  of  the  earth, 
and  be  free  to  consume,  hoard  and  dispose  of  his 
wages  according  to  his  will,  whilst  the  surplus 

66 


created  by  collective  labor  shall  be  gathered  by 
the  Single  Tax,  and  distributed  to  tlie  collective 
producers,  uot  iu  personal  dividends,  but  in  pro- 
vision for  collective  necessities  and  the  gratifica- 
tion of  collective  desires. 

The  construction  of  the  government  of  this  cor- 
poration must  be  democratic.58  That  is.  exactly 
that  of  a  private  business  corporation.  No  indi- 
vidual action  must  be  permitted  to  replace  the  con- 
certed action  of  the  people. 

Nor  need  we  forget  that  Utopia  is  beyond  the 
reach  of  human  action.  That  evil  and  death  are 
as  permanent  as  gravitation,  and  will  forever  re- 
main essential  elements  of  growth  and  progress. 
It  is  not  our  business  if  we  never  reach  perfection. 
All  men  must  be  free  to  choose  between  good  and 
evil,  and  we  must  be  content  with  the  rule  of  the 
majority.  We  may  be  assured,  however,  vhat  the 
majority  is  for  the  most  part  right,  and  that  our 
individual  duty  is  to  promote  justice  between  man 
and  man,  and  thus  advance  the  brotherhood  of  all 
mankind.  Now,  I  confidently  claim  your  assist- 
ance in  promoting  this  Utopian  idea.  It  is  exact- 
ly the  form  of  government  to  which  you  were  con- 
verted in  relation  to  municipal  affairs.  It  is  the 
form  of  government  adopted  by  business  corpora- 
tions and  by  English  cities.  I  ask  your  assistance 
to  teach  it  in  your  schools,  that  its  operation  may 

67 


be  extended  to  counties,  States,  and  nations.  This 
is  "the  ideal  arrangement,  although,  perhaps,  im- 
possible. If  it  is  impossible,  it  must  become  pos- 
sible somehow  before  we  can  get  on"  (Jordan). 

But  nothing  is  impossible  which  is  founded  on 
truth,  justice  and  natural  law.     Past  experience 
proves  it.     One  now  can  scarcely  believe  that  only 
fifty  years  ago  men  were  shot  down  and  imprison- 
ed for  advocating  vote  by  ballot  and  universal  suf- 
frage, and  by  honorable  men,  who  believed  their 
adoption  to  be  impossible  in  England!    Who  could 
have  anticipated   the  abolition  of   slavery  in  the 
United  States  fifty  years  ago?    Even  thirty  years 
ago  who  could    have   dreamed   that   men  would 
speak  to  each  other  a  thousand  miles  apart?    So, 
with  or  without  the  aid  of  universities,  Industrial 
freedom  must  ultimately  prevail,  because  it  is 
founded   on  truth   and  justice   and   the   law   of 
human  life.     It  is  obedience  to  this  law  which  con- 
stitutes true  religion,  and  I  would  call  upon  the 
clergy  of  all  denominations  to  adopt  it  as  the  basis 
of  their  teaching.     This   law   provides   the  true 
remedy  for  ignorance,   poverty,  and   immorality, 
and   is   the   only   safeguard   against   starvation, 
misery  and  death.     This  law  promises  the  realiza- 
tion of  that  glorious  document — the  Declaration 
of  Independence — which  states  so  clearly  that  all 
men  have  equal  right  to  life,  liberty  and  the  pur- 

68 


suit  of  happiness.  This  law  which  alone  gives 
right  to  all  men  equally  to  gratify  their  physical 
and  intellectual  desires  (Henry  George).  This  law 
which  is  so  well  expressed  in  the  motto  of  Eng- 
lish co-partners  "each  for  all,  and  all  for  each." 
This  law  which  assuredly  makes  for  more  and  bet- 
ter life  among  men  (Jordan).  This  law  which  de- 
clares the  equality  of  all  men  before  natural  law, 
and  is  the  foundation  of  the  brotherhood  of  all 
mankind.  STALLARD. 


APPENDIX. 


Note  I. — Adequate  intelligence  and  adequate 
strength  are  not  combined  in  the  same  man.     (J.) 

Men  in  general  are  neither  idiots  nor  invalids. 
Man  has  nothing  else  to  depend  upon  but  intelli- 
gence and  strength.     (S.) 

Note  2. — Labor  is  also  exerted  on  labor  or  the 
past  results  of  labor,  also  a  form  of  industry.     (J.) 

Labor  cannot  be  exerted  on  labor  only.  There 
can  be  no  labor  without  land  or  its  products.    (S.) 

Note  3. — Only  by  exchange.  But  one  can  be  ex- 
changed for  another  and  must  be  in  social  co- 
operation.    (J.) 

But  we  are  now  discussing  individual,  inde- 
pendent life,  and  exchange  is  necessarily  excluded 
from  the  argument.  (S . ) 

Note  J[. — Not  in  the  tropics,  nor  when  incentives 
are  withdrawn  by  social  force.     (J.) 

We  are  still  discussing  individual  life,  but  even 
in  the  tropics  food  does  not  fall  into  his  open 
mouth.  He  must  also  tramp  and  beg  when  social 
incentives  are  withdrawn.     (S.) 


Note  5. — But  lacking  intelligence,  he  begs  this 
article;  his  slavery  is  endemic,  not  the  result  of 
force.     (J.) 

Nevertheless,  many  intelligent  and  highly  edu- 
cated men  may  and  do  become  absolutely  desti- 
tute, often  the  result  of  uncontrolable  forces. 
Under  present  conditions  they  are  compelled  to 
beg  for  food  or  work.  How  many  thousands  have 
done  so?  How  many  masters  of  arts  are  cow- 
boys in  Texas?     (S.) 

Note  6. — Your  argument  that  trees  have  not 
equal  access  to  land  seems  to  me  without  force. 

(S.) 

It  is  without  force,  but  so  is  the  statement  that 
men  have  a  divine  or  any  other  right  to  equal  ac- 
cess. Trees,  as  individuals,  are  certainly  depend- 
ent on  access  to  land,  men  are  not.     (J.) 

My  statement  is  not  that  men  have  a  divine  or 
any  other  right  to  equal  access  to  land,  but  a  state- 
ment of  simple  fact,  viz.,  that  access  to  land  is  an 
essential  condition  in  the  maintenance  of  inde- 
pendent human  life.  Both  men  and  trees  exist  on 
the  conditions  supplied  by  land,  and  would  die 
without  them.  Equal  access  is  simply  an  im- 
possibility, and  were  it  possible  could  not  be  main- 
tained. This  is  nowhere  proposed  by  Henry 
George.     But  the  right  or  title  of  all  men  to  access 

71 


to  land  must  be  equal  in  order  to  secure  to  all  men 
the  possibility  of  living,  and  this  equality  is  simple 
justice  between  man  and  man.  Nor  is  it  necessary 
that  all  men  should  be  farmers,  miners,  or  market 
gardeners  to  secure  access  to  land,  for  it  is  obvi- 
ous that  access  does  not  depend  on  the  fact  of  occu- 
pation. The  taking  of  rent  affords  an  equal 
guarantee.  Landlords  have  complete  access  to 
land  by  taking  rent  even  when  they  are  absentees. 
Rent  is  wealth  created  by  the  community  at  large, 
and  by  putting  the  community  into  the  landlord's 
shoes  every  citizen  gets  access  to  land  and  shares 
both  in  the  creation  and  expenditure  of  rent,  no 
matter  what  his  trade  or  occupation.  Thus  is  sim- 
ple justice  between  man  and  man  secured  by  the 
operation  of  the  single  tax.     (S.) 

Note  7. — Trees  are  not  endowed  with  intellect  or 
active  strength.  (S.) 

Neither  are  many  men.  Men  must  exchange  one 
for  the  other.     (J.) 

Animals  without  intelligence  or  strength  cannot 
be  classed  as  men.  Exchange  is  a  necessity  of 
collective,  not  of  independent  human  life.  Robin- 
son Crusoe  had  no  opportunity  to  make  exchange 
until  Friday  came  to  him.     (S.) 

Note  8. — If  all  men  depended  on  themselves  for 
choice  the  world  would  be  scantily  populated.    (J.) 

72 


There  is  no  need  for  universal  independence. 
Men  gain  too  much  from  social  intercourse  and  co- 
operation.    (S.) 

Note  9. — Once  armed  with  the  independent  op- 
portunity of  maintaining  life  by  the  employment 
of  his  own  labor  upon  land,  a  man,  however  desti- 
tute, is  really  free.    (S.) 

Not  all.  Robinson  Crusoe  could  have  suffered 
from  almost  any  of  the  known  forms  of  misery. 

(J.) 

True;  but  misery  is  not  an  essential  condition  of 
human  life,  and  although  a  prisoner  on  the  island, 
Crusoe  exerted  his  intellect  and  strength  on  land 
and  was  made  free  to  live.  He  was  his  own 
master.     (S.) 

Note  10. — He  is  no  longer  at  the  mercy  of  em- 
ployers.    (S.) 

But  he  is  at  the  mercy  of  brains.     (J.) 

While  he  has  the  independent  opportunity  of 
maintaining  his  own  life  by  his  own  labor  exerted 
upon  land,  he  is  at  the  mercy  of  nothing  but  su- 
perior force.  Even  then  he  remains  master  of 
himself.     (S.) 

Note  11. — If  all  men  could  get  at  the  land,  and 
could  live  when  they  got  there,  the  earth  would  be 
too  small  to  support  them.     There  is  much  bad 

73 


land,  unproductive  land,  malarial  land.  Only  the 
best  tillage  on  good  and  healthy  land,  with  brains 
in  direction,  will  make  civilized  life.     (J.) 

This  may  or  may  not  be  true.  But  we  are  dis- 
cussing the  conditions  of  independent  human  life, 
not  the  progress  of  civilization  or  the  future  of  the 
race.  Nevertheless,  the  limit  of  production  is  not 
yet  known.  In  East  Flanders  thirty  thousand 
people  live  on  thirty-seven  thousand  acres,  all 
taken,  and  besides  they  manage  to  support  10,720 
head  of  horned  cattle,  3,800  sheep,  1815  horses, 
6,550  swine,  and  to  export  flax  and  other  agricult- 
ural produce.  In  one  hundred  years  the  food  pro- 
duction of  France  has  increased  fifteen  times 
faster  than  the  growth  of  population — a  practical 
proof  that  the  so-called  law  of  Malthus  is  not  in- 
fallible.    (S.) 

LAW    AND    JUSTICE. 

Note  12. — The  law  of  independent  human  life 
provides  the  only  line  of  action  which  secures  the 
independent  existence  of  human  beings.     (S.) 

There  is  no  such  line  of  action — most  of  all  de- 
pends on  the  being,  his  health  and  heredity.  The 
law  of  independent  life  does  not  follow  from  the 
observed  facts.  You  use  nowhere  the  inductive 
method  except  in  a  few  illustrations.  Your  real 
argument   rests   on    an   invention   like    "similia 

74 


sinrilibus";  in  other  words,  you  are  guided  by 
an  assumed  divine  law.  never  yet  tried  except 
in  part,  and  which  you  have  discovered  through 
"  a  priori"  reasoning.  There  is  no  law  which 
says,  "This  ought  to  be  'thus  and  so,'  but  is 
not.  There  are  many  (a  priori)  schemes  of  human 
life.  You  overlook  the  fact  that  the  great  prob- 
lems are  psychological,  physiological  and  ethical 
rather  than  economic.  I  respect  truth,  but  not 
the  "a  priori"  method  of  reaching  for  it.  That 
yields  truth  sometimes,  but  gives  no  test  by  which 
we  can  tell  truth  from  moonshine.  "Scientific 
men,"  says  Professor  Brooks  (and  I  endorse  his 
statement),  "repudiate  the  opinion  that  natural 
laws  are  'rulers'  and  'governors'  over  nature,  and 
look  with  suspicion  on  all  'necessary'  or  'universal' 
laws."  Man  has  never  found  out  such.  Certainly 
such  laws  are  not  rulers.  We  must  rule  ourselves 
within  the  limits  of  our  environment,  which  is 
made  up  of  cause  and  following  effects. 

I  deny  that  all  known  natural  laws  make  for 
more  and  better  life  among  men.  There  are  laws 
of  decay  as  well  as  laws  of  growth. 

We  have  not  reached  a  point  where  deductive 
argument  can  prove  anything  to  be  trusted  in 
human  conduct. 

What  justice  is  can  only  be  found  out  by  experi- 
ment and  attained  only  by  the  slow  growth  which 

75 


is  possible  under  governmental  forms.  I  know  of 
no  way  of  getting  at  justice  through  the  applica- 
tion of  universal  laws,  because  no  such  laws  can 
bring  credentials. 

If,  as  Dr.  Warner  says,  putting  air  in  private 
hands  would  yield  a  better  supply  on  juster  terms 
there  is  no  divine  reason  why  we  should  not  turn 
the  atmosphere  over  to  an  air  company.      (J.) 

If  the  skies  fall  we  shall  catch  larks,  but  in  my 
premises  there  is  no  "if."  It  is  simple  fact  that 
men  are  animals  endowed  with  intelligence  and 
strength,  and  by  exerting  that  intelligence  and 
strength  on  land  they  obtain  food  and  maintain 
existence.  These  facts  form  an  impregnable  basis 
of  inductive  argument.  But  in  order  to  show  that 
ethics,  psychology  and  heredity  have  nothing- 
whatever  to  do  with  the  simple  maintenance  of  life 
I  will  put  the  question  in  a  simpler  form.  Thus: 
Men  are  land  animals,  and  fish  are  water  animals. 
Human  and  fish  life  depend,  respectively,  on  the 
conditions  to  be  found  in  land  and  water.  Now 
life,  land,  and  water  are  here  metaphors.  They 
mean  more  than  the  simple  words  express,  but 
they  are  convenient  and  necessary  and  save  long 
descriptions  of  well  known  facts;  and  the  facts 
are  that  men  live  on  land,  and  fishes  in  the  water. 
This  is  no  invention  of  mine.     There  is  here  no 


76 


baseless  hypothesis  like  "similia  similibus,"  no  "a 
priori" reasoning,  no  assumed  divine  law  (whatever 
that  may  mean),  no  reference  whatever  to  the  pur- 
poses of  nature,  and  I  simply  state  the  self-evident 
facts  that  men  are  born  and  live  on  land  and  fishes 
in  the  water.  These  facts  a  child  can  understand 
and  no  philosopher  can  doubt. 

Now,  natural  law  is  the  constant  relation    be- 
tween   definite    antecedent    facts    or    conditions 
(causes)  and  definite  consecutive  results  (effects). 
Under  this  definition,  to  live  on  land  is  a  natural 
law  of  human  life,  and  to  live  in  water  is  a  natural 
law  of  fish  life.     Exactly  the  same  reasoning  ap- 
plies to  material  bodies.     The  mutual  attraction 
between  two  of  them  constitutes  the  natural  law 
of  gravitation.     No  reasoning  can  get  closer  to 
the  facts;  it  is  induction  pure  and  simple.     If  not, 
I  give  the  question  up.    But  the  law  of  human  life 
as  it  depends  on  land,  and  the  law  of  fish  life  as  it 
depends  on  water,  is  not  the  whole  law  of  life  any 
more  than  the  mutual  attraction  of  two  bodies  is 
the  whole  law  of  gravitation;  for  as  in  the  one  case 
the  antecedent  conditions  and  consecutive  results 
are  definitely  modified  by  density  and  distance,  so 
in  the  others  are  the  laws  of  human  and  fish  life 
definitely  modified  by  the  million  different  influ- 
ences with  which  they  come  in  contact.     But  the 
fundamental  law  in  all  three  cases  remains  con- 

77 


stant  and  intact.  If  fishes  do  not  get  at  water  they 
die;  if  men  do  not  get  at  land  they  starve  to  death. 
And  two  material  bodies,  if  not  mutually  attract- 
ed to  each  other,  would  remain  separate.  The 
maintenance  of  fish  life,  like  that  of  human  life, 
is,  therefore,  purely  and  simply  a  question  of  eco- 
nomics. The  water  must  be  open  to  the  industry 
of  fishes,  just  as  land  must  be  open  to  the  industry 
of  men,  and  under  these  natural  conditions  only 
life  is  safe.  It  is  simply  nonsense  to  speak  of  the 
psychological,  ethical  and  hereditary  problems  of 
fishes  as  involved  in  the  maintenance  of  fish  life, 
and  it  is  difficult  to  define  the  age  when  they  begin 
to  operate  in  man,  but  it  is  clear  that  they  have  no 
more  to  do  with  the  simple  maintenance  of  human 
life  than  they  have  with  moonshine. 

In  this  there  is  no  intention  to  ignore  the  import- 
ance of  psychology,  ethics  and  heredity  in  the 
the  development  of  individual  character  and  social 
life,  but  we  are  discussing  the  simple  question  of 
maintaining  human  existence,  which,  obviously, 
must  be  settled  on  a  firm  basis  before  the  others 
can  be  reached. 

In  the  next  place,  the  sequence  of  events  which 
constitute  the  law  of  independent  life  distinctly 
points  out  many  things  which  ought  to  be  "thus 
and  so,"  but  are  not.  For  example,  all  men  ought 
to  have  enough  to  eat  and  drink,  and  for  this  all 

78 


men  ought  to  have  access  to  land,  but  landlords 
have  been  given  the  control  and  ownership  of  land 
by  an  edict  of  social  agreement  in  direct  antago- 
nism to  this  "ought  to  be"  of  human  life. 

And  here  it  becomes  necessary  to  differ  from 
Professor  Brooks,  and  apparently  from  you  also, 
as  to  the  importance  and  value  of  all  natural  laws. 
You  deny  that  all  such  laws  make  for  more  and 
better  life  among  men,  and  say  truly  that  there  are 
laws  of  decay  as  well  as  laws  of  growth.  But 
these  laws  are  complimentary,  one  to  the  other. 
There  is  no  decay  without  growth,  and  no  growth 
without  decay.  Neither  is  there  death  without 
life, nor  life  without  death;  and  it  is  therefore  need- 
less to  argue  that  decay  and  death  make  for  more 
and  better  life  among  men,  for  both  are  essential 
to  the  law — they  constitute  no  exception. 

Nor  can  scientific  men  afford  "to  repudiate 
the  opinion  that  natural  laws  are  'rulers'  and  'gov- 
ernors' over  nature,  or  look  with  suspicion  on  all 
'necessary'  and  'universal'  laws.  Man  has  never 
found  out  such." 

But  what  more  suitable  metaphors  or  what 
safer  standards  can  be  used?  When  we  say  that 
the  sun  rules  the  day  and  the  moon  governs  the 
night,  no  one  supposes  that  they  rule  by  edicts, 
susceptible  to  change,  but  we  simply  mean  that 

79 


there  exists  an  ascertained  sequence  of  particular 
events  so  definite,  so  sure,  and  so  constant,  that 
we  are  able  to  tell  the  minute  of  sunrise  at  any 
given  place,  or  any  given  day,  in  any  given  year, 
in  any  given  century.  A  suspected  law  is  not  a 
natural  law — the  sequences  have  not  been  ascer- 
tained. It  is  no  law  at  all.  It  is  a  surmise  or  pre- 
sumption only.  If  we  cannot  depend  on  natural 
law  (ascertained  sequences)  for  our  rule  of  action, 
chaos  is  still  here. 

And  if  "we  have  not  reached  a  point  where  de- 
ductive argument  can  prove  anything  to  be  trusted 
in  human  conduct,"  where  are  we?  On  what  other 
ground  is  it  possible  to  stand?  How  otherwise 
progress? 

Every  successful  action  of  human  life  depends 
on  faithful  obedience  to  some  natural  law  that  is 
"ascertained  sequences."  Men  eat  and  drink  to 
live.  They  depend  upon  the  earth  for  food  and  on 
the  air  for  the  oxygen  they  breathe.  They  walk 
upon  their  feet;  they  see  with  their  eyes,  hear 
with  their  ears,  and  think  with  their  brains,  when 
they  have  any.  These  and  a  thousand  other  laws 
are  natural  laws  of  life,  the  violation  of  any  one  of 
which  makes  for  misery  and  death.  Are  not  the 
professors  of  Stanford  searching  the  earth  for 
truth,  that  is,  for  "ascertained  sequences,"  for  the 
benefit  of  human  conduct?    Has  the  law  of  evolu- 

80 


tion  no  lessons  for  effective  human  action?  Or, 
to  take  a  concrete  example,  the  widest  and  closest 
observation  has  firmly  established  the  relationship 
between  temperance  and  health,  and  there  is  no 
difficulty  whatever  in  applying  this  universal  law 
to  influence  our  lives  and  happiness. 

Nor  is  experiment  needed  to  determine  what  is 
justice,  for  justice  is  an  eternal  and  unalterable 
principle  of  action,  the  law  of  which  is  as  well 
established  as  the  law  of  gravitation.  Justice  is 
simply  "the  equality  of  all  men  before  the  law." 
But  not  equality  before  all  sorts  of  law;  not  equal- 
ity before  unequal  law;  not  equality  before  un- 
truthful law;  not  equality  before  bench  law;  not 
equality  before  military  law;  not  equality  before 
United  States  law — in  fine,  not  equality  before  any 
human  made  law  whatever.  But  justice  is  the 
equality  of  all  men  before  natural  law,  which  is 
alone  just  and  equal  and  the  only  law  which,  when 
free  to  all  men,  as  it  should  be,  provides  a  certain 
guarantee  that  life,  liberty  and  happiness  are  with- 
in the  reach  of  all  men. 

Justice,  therefore,  simply  gives  to  all  men  equal 
title  to  the  benefits  of  "ascertained  sequences,"  or 
natural  law.  It  is  injustice  which  denies  these 
benefits  to  any,  and  such  denial  is  continually  or- 
dained by  human  legislation  and  carried  out  by 
force. 

81 


Justice  entitles  no  man  to  the  exclusive  use  of 
any  benefits  due  to  natural  laws,  and  neither  gov- 
ernments nor  constitutions  can  confer  on  some  ex- 
clusive title  to  natural  benefits  which  belong 
equally  to  others.  "I  will  accept  nothing  for  my- 
self/' says  W.  Whitman,  "which  all  may  not  have 
the  counterpart  of  on  equal  terms."  This  alone  is 
absolute  fairness  between  man  and  man. 

The  credential  of  jusice  is  not  difficult  to  find;  it 
is  exposed  on  the  very  surface  of  all  just  laws,  and 
attested  by  the  absence  of  special  privileges.  All 
men  are  equal  before  natural  law,  but  the  injustice 
of  social  agreement,  in  the  form  of  American  law, 
has  conferred  special  privileges  on  landlords  at  the 
expense  of  other  people. 

Moreover,  justice  does  not  "depend  on  govern- 
mental forms,  nor  is  it  attained  slowTly  by  their 
aid."  Government  in  any  form  or  by  any  means 
is  incapable  of  creating  justice  or  even  of  securing 
its  attainment,  for  the  relation  of  "all  men"  to 
natural  law  is  personal  and  sacred,  and  is  deter- 
mined, not  by  governmental  forces,  but  by  the 
man  himself.  All  that  governments  can  do  is  to 
disturb  the  equality  of  right,  as  when  it  confers  on 
landlords  the  exclusive  privilege  of  private  owner- 
ship of  land,  whereby  they  are  enabled  to  exclude 
other  citizens  from  the  very  source  of  life.  Justice 
as  thus  defined  is  the  foundation  of  individual  free- 

82 


dom,  and  it  is  the  only  safe  guide  of  human  con- 
duct. It  applies  to  "all  men,"  both  in  the  individ- 
ual and  collective  sense.  It  is  the  cardinal  princi- 
ple of  democratic  government,  and  the  only  rea- 
sonable hope  for  peace  and  good  will  among  indi- 
viduals and  nations. 

It  is  thus  proved  that  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  is  a  fortress  of  injustice,  in  which 
the  acknowledged  right  of  all  men  to  life,  liberty 
and  the  pursuit  of  happiness  is  fettered  and  con- 
fined. You  declare  that  the  only  government  you 
recognize  is  that  which  establishes  justice,  never 
that  which  establishes  injustice,  and  I  therefore 
confidently  call  upon  you  to  assist  in  the  alteration 
of  American  law  that  justice  may  be  permitted  to 
prevail. 

Human  legislation  cannot  even  foster  justice.  It 
can  only  interfere  with  it;  for  whenever  govern- 
ments attempt  empirically  to  correct  or  extermi- 
nate personal  misdoings  the  freedom  of  justice  is 
destroyed  and  the  evil  is  increased. 

For  men  cannot  be  made  just  to  one  another, 
honest,  sober,  clean,  polite  or  virtuous  by  any  form 
of  human  legislation.  These  are  and  ever  must  be 
personal  considerations — to  be  determined  by  per- 
sonal associations  and  personal  education.  When 
I  was  a  boy  drunkenness  was  the  test  of  English 
hospitality.     A  gentleman  dishonored  his  host  by 

83 


walking  home;  he  honored  him  by  drinking  his 
three  bottles  and  falling  insensible  underneath  the 
table.  The  poor  man  also  measured  his  happiness 
by  the  same  standard  and  got  home  from  the  fairs 
and  junketings  after  lying  in  the  ditch  all  night. 
All  this  time  there  were  laws  to  punish  drunkards, 
from  which,  as  usual,  the  rich  escaped,  and  by 
which  the  poor  and  ignorant  were  scourged. 
Amongst  the  rich  this  test  of  hospitality  has  long 
since  passed  away,  without  any  legal  interference; 
public  opinion  has  declared  such  conduct  a  dis- 
grace to  the  class,  but  the  poor  and  ignorant  con- 
tinue their  excesses  in  spite  of  governmental 
forces. 

For  natural  law  is  the  only  real  schoolmaster 
which  teaches  wisdom  and  shows  up  the  folly  of 
disobedience  to  its  righteous  teachings.  It  is  the 
master  force  of  progress.  Civilization  advances 
as  fast  as  the  fools  learn  wisdom  or  are  killed  off 
by  the  law  of  evolution.  Nature  is  kind  to  her 
true  disciples,  but  has  no  mercy  for  the  fools. 
When  a  man  drinks  to  excess  over  night  he  gets  a 
warning  headache  in  the  morning.  If  he  neglects 
this  warning,  his  liver,  brains  and  family  surely 
suffer,  and  with  further  persistence  in  his  evil- 
doing  comes  misery  and  death.  But  human  stu- 
pidity presumes  to  improve  on  natural  law.  It 
taxes  drink,  enacts  prohibition,  and   closes  the 

84 


saloons.  It  fines  and  imprisons  the  drunkard 
when  caught  by  the  police.  It  fears  that  the  fool 
will  get  another  headache;  that  he  may  ruin  his 
family,  or  even  kill  himself  with  drink.  Thus, 
whilst  natural  law  would  utterly  destroy  the  fools, 
human  edicts  are  issued  to  protect  them  from  their 
folly  and  to  preserve  the  breed.  Swaddling 
clothes  and  leading  strings  are  only  fit  for  infants, 
but  men  must  be  made  to  realize  the  consequences 
of  evil  doing,  each  on  his  own  account.  Under 
the  uninterrupted  reign  of  natural  law  fools  will 
be  overwhelmed  in  their  own  folly  and  wise  men 
will  increase  and  multiply. 

All  that  justice  wants,  therefore,  is  a  fair  field 
and  no  favor.  It  asks  no  direct  help  from  govern- 
ments and  human  edicts.  It  grows  by  its  own  in- 
herent force.  It  is  fostered  by  personal  education 
and  by  personal  association  with  the  just.  In  all 
other  respects  it  simply  asks  to  be  left  religiously 
alone. 

But  justice  demands  the  destruction  of  all 
special  privileges  and  the  recognition  by  govern- 
ments of  the  title  of  all  men  equally  to  the  benefits 
of  natural  laws;  individuals  and  nations  may  then 
rest  in  calm  assurance  that  the  power  of  good 
must  in  the  end  prevail. 

Now,  it  is  the  province  of  schools  and  universi- 
ties to  search  out  truth  and  justice,  which  are  but 

85 


different  expressions  of  the  same  great  law,  for 
there  is  no  truth  in  injustice,  no  injustice  in  truth. 
It  is  for  the  professors  of  political  economy  to 
teach  all  governments  that  the  progress  of  truth 
and  justice  is  beyond  the  scope  of  human  legisla- 
tion, and  that  it  is  for  individuals  to  choose  be- 
tween the  happiness  of  good  and  the  misery  of 
evil.  As  Moses  told  the  Jews,  "Behold,  I  have  set 
before  thee  this  day,  life  and  good,  death  and  evil." 
Man's  whole  business  upon  earth  is  to  search  out 
natural  laws,  whether  of  truth  and  falsehood,  jus- 
tice and  injustice,  good  and  evil,  life  and  death. 
The  more  we  know  of  these  laws,  the  more  accu- 
rately we  trace  their  action,  the  more  faithfully  we 
follow  their  teachings  for  good  and  their  warnings 
against  evil,  the  longer  we  shall  live  and  the  hap- 
pier we  must  be,  for  all  natural  laws  (ascertained 
sequences)  make  for  more  and  better  life  among 
men. 

Note  13. — Social  agreement  is  impotent  to  pro- 
vide either  food  or  employment  for  all  manknd. 

(S.) 
Human  action  in  any  form  is  important.     (J.) 

If  humanity  is  really  impotent  to  provide  its  own 
food  by  its  own  exertion,  it  is  very  badly  fixed. 
But  there  are  pretty  good  indications  that  we  may 
struggle  on  a  few  more  centuries  without  fear  of 

86 


starvation.  The  little  State  of  California  could 
easily  provide  for  another  hundred  millions  if 
cultivated  like  the  Channel  Islands.  If  only  60  per 
cent,  of  the  land  of  California  were  cultivated  on 
the  same  scale  as  those  islands,  there  would  be 
adequate  support  for  one  hundred  and  twenty 
millions,  and  she  still  might  export  much  more 
produce  than  she  does  to-day.     (S.) 

Note  Uf. — It  is  not  your  democracy  nor  any 
other  ocracy  that  makes  your  people  contented. 
It  is  because  you  have  very  much  land  and  very 
few  people. — Carlyle.     (J.) 

Free  land  makes  a  free  and  contented  people. 
California  should  be  the  freest  and  most  contented 
on  earth.  Yet  it  is  not  half  as  contented  as  the 
Channel  Islanders,  who  number  thirteen  hundred 
to  the  square  mile,  and  have  neither  tramps  nor 
paupers.     (S.) 

Note  15. — This  is  not  the  whole  story.  Giving 
anything  pauperizes.  England  has  not  land 
enough  to  support  all  her  people  if  all  had  land 
and  none  worked  on  the  results  of  labor.     (J.) 

The  whole  story  is  not  necessary.  Some  pauper- 
ism is  self-induced,  but  much  more  is  created  by 
the  mistakes  of  social  agreement  and  the  injustice 
established  by  governments.  It  is  not  true  that  the 

87 


giving  of  anything  pauperizes.  The  Jews  give 
freely  to  their  poor,  but  do  not  pauperize.  The 
giving  or  receiving  of  anything  is,  in  itself,  neither 
dishonorable  nor  degrading.  It  is  a  complete  de- 
lusion to  suppose  that  England  has  not  land 
enough  to  support  her  population.  If  the  culti- 
vable area  of  the  United  Kingdom  were  cultivated 
as  the  soil  is  cultivated  on  the  average  in  Belgium 
there  would  be  food  for  thirty-seven  millions  of 
people,  and  England  might  export  food  without 
ceasing  to  manufacture  (Krapotkin).  If  the  popu- 
lation of  the  United  Kingdom  came  to  be  doubled, 
all  that  would  be  required  for  producing  food  for 
eighty  millions  would  be  to  cultivate  the  soil  as  it 
is  already  cultivated  on  the  best  farms  in  England, 
Lombardy,  or  Flanders,  and  to  utilize  meadow 
lands,  which  are  now  almost  unproductive,  in  the 
same  way  as  in  the  neighborhood  of  the  big  cities 
of  France  (Krapotkin).  In  1870  I  visited  the 
Breton  farm  at  Komford.  It  cost  the  owner  £40 
an  acre,  and  had  been  cultivated  by  the  former  ten- 
ant and  his  two  sons,  with  the  help  of  two  horses. 
At  the  time  of  my  visit  thirty  men  and  twenty- 
five  horses  were  employed,  besides  a  hundred 
women  and  children.  The  annual  cost  of  cultiva- 
tion was  $175  an  acre,  and  the  produce  sold  for 
more  than  double.     The  irrigation  farm  at  Alder- 


88 


snot  cost  the  English  Government  twelve  cents  an 
acre.     It  now  rents  for  f  100  per  acre  annually. 

It  is  the  incubus  of  rent  which  strangles  English 
agriculture.  The  industrial  classes  of  England 
have  to  pay  their  landlords  one  billion  dollars 
annually  for  the  privilege  of  standing  on  English 
soil;  and  they  have  to  pay  nearly  as  much  again  in 
taxes.  The  Liberals  are  now  proposing  to  transfer 
one-fifth  of  the  rental  of  England  to  the  public 
treasury,  relieving  industry  annually  to  the  tune 
of  twenty  millions  of  dollars.  Eelieved  of  this 
overwhelming  burden,  the  industrial  classes  will 
get  higher  wages  and  at  the  same  time  be  able  to 
compete  successfully  with  any  industrial  com- 
munity on  earth. 

SOCIAL  AGREEMENT. 

Note  16. — Social  agreement  cannot  successfully 
control  the  conditions  of  independent  human  life. 

(S.) 

This  does  not  follow.  Property  is  not  a  divine 
right;  it  is  a  creation  of  social  agreement  which  is 
the  resultant  of  social  forces,  psychological  forces 
and  human  history.  Social  agreement  is  a  fact, 
using  that  term  for  its  statutes  or  conventional 
operations  among  men.  No  statesman  can  rise 
much  above  social  agreement,  which  is  the  inevi- 

89 


table  result  of  laws  and  conditions.  Social  agree- 
ment must  approximate  the  best  conditions  if  civi- 
lization progresses;  it  declines  if  intelligence  and 
activity  decline.  It  grows  better  as  men  grow 
wiser.  Men  cannot  grasp  at  higher  laws  they  have 
not  the  wisdom  to  understand.  Social  agreement, 
like  the  methods  of  farmers,  varies  with  the  wis- 
dom of  its  units.  It  is  pretty  bad  yet.  Most  farm- 
ing is  equally  bad.     (J.) 

The  conditions  of  independent  human  life  are  as 
fixed  and  unalterable  as  the  law  of  gravitation, 
and  cannot  be  amenable  to  human  statutes  or  the 
conventional  operations  of  men.  By  defying  ascer- 
tained sequences  (natural  law),  individuals  may 
turn  night  into  day,  and  will  surely  suffer  for  their 
folly.  So  also  social  agreement  may  defy  justice 
and  establish  starvation,  misery  and  death.  It 
has  already  done  so.  For  social  agreement  has  no 
definite  principle  of  action;  it  has  no  respect  for 
either  truth  or  justice.  There  are  communities  in 
which  social  agreement  makes  heroes  of  the  most 
expert  thieves  and  most  successful  burglars.  The 
general  who  kills  most  Filipinos  will  be  worship- 
ped by  social  agreement  in  America  to-day.  Social 
agreement  supports  protection  in  one  country  and 
free  trade  in  another;  imperialism  in  one  place 
and  popular  government  in  another.  There  is  no 
folly  or  injustice  for  which  this  mythical  and  many 

90 


headed  monster  is  not  made  the  scapegoat.  Social 
agreement  is  the  tool  of  wealth;  it  is  the  slave  of 
power;  it  has  an  unreasoning  reverence  for  vested 
interests,  even  when  those  interests  are  most  un- 
just in  their  nature  and  most  injurious  to  the  ma- 
jority of  people.  Social  agreement  is  the  strong- 
hold of  special  privileges,  all  of  which  retard  the 
progress  of  industrial  freedom.  It  is  social  agree- 
ment which  takes  twenty  millions  annually  from 
the  industrial  classes  of  San  Francisco  for  the 
privilege  of  standing  on  its  soil  and  more  than 
half  as  much  again  for  taxes.  It  is  social  agree- 
ment which  enables  a  privileged  few  to  live  in  idle- 
ness and  luxury  on  the  industry  of  other  people. 
Your  verdict  that  it  is  "pretty  bad"  gives  me  the 
greatest  satisfaction,  but  I  am  the  more  surprised 
that  you  should  prefer  social  agreement  to  Divinity 
as  an  authority  for  the  "right  to  property,"  for 
Divinity  includes  the  idea  of  ascertained  sequences, 
or  natural  law.  What  possible  "right"  can  be  es- 
tablished by  "pretty  bad"  authority?  What  possi- 
ble title  has  a  "pretty  bad  authority"  to  grant 
privileges  to  some  men  and  deny  the  same  to 
others?  Social  agreement  cannot  influence  human 
action  successfully  until  itrespects  justice  between 
man  and  man.  This  must  be  the  standard  to 
which  all  statutes  and  conventional  operations 
among  men  must  be  referred  before  adoption.     I 

01 


confidently  claim  your  assistance  and  that  of  your 
professors  to  destroy  "pretty  bad"  as  an  authority 
for  "rights"  of  any  kind,  and  to  establish  justice  as 
the  cardinal  principle  of  social  action  in  the 
United  States.     (S.) 

Note  11. — The  community  must  get  at  land,  not 
necessarily  all  its  individuals.     (J.) 

All  men  must  get  at  land,  for  no  one  can  find  a 
footing  in  the  clouds.  All  men  must  have  access 
to  land  for  food. 

Men  can  enjoy  universal  access  without  being 
farmers,  miners,  or  market  gardeners  (vide  note  6). 

(S.) 

Note  18. — In  collective  labor,  there  is  "invari- 
ably" a  surplus  produced  by  the  co-operators  in 
their  corporate  capacity.     (S.) 

Invariably?  Some  men  are  devoured  by  wages. 
Cost  of  production  can  be  less  than  product  only 
when  the  greatest  wisdom  exists.     (J.) 

Invariably.  There  is  no  exception.  Land  is  a 
prime  necessity  of  all  co-operative  industry.  The 
mere  presence  of  the  workers  creates  land  value, 
which  is  the  source  of  rent.  Rent  is  a  first  charge 
on  co-operative  industry,  and  the  landlord  takes 
his  rent  even  when  the  employer,  through  lack  of 
wisdom,  is  devoured  by  wages.     The  landlord  is 


92 


the  true  devourer  both  of  employers  and  employed. 
He  takes  his  toll  on  all  the  wealth  that  they  create, 
come  what  may.     (S.) 

Note  19. — The  surplus  of  collective  industry  is 
conserved  in  rent;  consequently  land  value  in- 
creases with  population.     (S.) 

This  is  purely  theoretical.  The  value  of  a  place 
depends  in  part  on  the  scramble  for  it.     (J.) 

And  what  is  the  scramble  but  the  higgling  of 
the  market,  that  which  determines  the  value  of 
labor  and  all  other  things?  When  the  scramblers 
are  many,  values  rise;  when  they  are  few,  they  fall. 
The  scramble  represents  the  price  buyers  are  will- 
ing to  give  for  the  satisfaction  of  their  desire  for 
land,  and  when  the  public  are  purchasers,  the 
value  of  the  land  for  public  use.  This  is  fact,  not 
theory.     (S.) 

PROPERTY  IN  LAND. 

Note  20. — Property  in  land  is  a  creation  of  social 
agreement.  The  world  cannot  prevent  the  men 
who  got  hold  of  Greece  from  becoming  Grecians. 
Once  Grecians,  they  did  not  give  the  barbarians 
half  a  chance.  Although  free  appropriation  may 
have  been  bad  policy,  it  binds  us  just  the  same.  If 
it  is  bad  policy,  don't  do  it  again.  If  a  deed  was 
given  to  the  first  settlers  in  San  Francisco  we,  who 
have  agreed  to  recognize  this  act,  or  sworn  fealty 

93 


to  the  American  Constitution,  must  recognize  that 
the  land  is  now  theirs.  Certainly  the  title  of  own- 
ers having  such  deeds  is  better  than  that  of  others 
who  have  none.  This  may  have  been  unwisdom, 
but  it  gives  no  man  and  no  community  moral  or 
legal  right  to  correct  it,  unless  a  community  agrees 
upon  a  method  of  correction.  The  community  can 
only  deal  honestly  and  legally  by  paying  for  what 
it  takes.  The  land  is  now  in  the  hands  of  innocent 
purchasers,  who  have  exchanged  products  of  labor 
for  it  on  the  guarantee  of  title  by  the  Constitution. 
The  question  is  one  of  action  to-day,  but  George's 
proposal  to  tax  ownership  out  of  existence  is  con- 
fiscation, whether  taken  all  at  once  or  in  a  thou- 
sand years.  All  taxation  is  accomplished  by 
force.     (J.) 

In  the  first  place,  as  to  the  legal  compact  and  the 
American  Constitution.  In  giving  deeds  to  land 
owners,  the  Constitution  reserved  the  right  of 
taxation.  Real  estate  is  taxed  in  every  State, 
often  by  separate  assessment.  Nor  has  any  limit 
ever  been  imposed  on  such  taxation  by  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States.  There  is  no  con- 
stitutional obstacle  to  the  taxation  of  land  value 
even  to  the  extent  proposed  by  Henry  George,  for 
government  may  have  full  right  under  conditions 
to  claim  the  lives  and  property  of  all  the  citizens. 

The  question  is  simply  one  of  justice. 

94 


Now,  the  arguments  here  advanced  are  exactly 
thoseemployed  by  the  slave-owners  fifty  years  ago. 
They  admitted  that  slavery  was  originally  the 
creation  of  force,  and  that  the  white  people  acted 
like  Grecians  and  did  not  give  the  colored  races 
half  a  chance;  that  the  institution  was  adopted 
by  social  agreement  and  the  Constitution,  which 
recognized  the  deeds  of  transfer  and  enacted  laws 
for  its  maintenance,  of  which  the  fugitive  slave 
law  was  a  marked  example.  The  ownership  of 
slaves  had  the  same  sanction  as  the  ownership  of 
land.  Less  than  forty  years  ago  slaves  were  in 
the  hands  of  innocent  purchasers,  who  had  ex- 
changed products  of  labor  for  them  on  the  guaran- 
tee of  title  by  the  Constitution,  and  they  said  that 
although  it  might  have  been  unwisdom,  no  man 
and  no  community  had  a  legal  or  a  moral  right  to 
correct  it,  and  that  the  community  could  only  deal 
honestly  and  legally  by  paying  for  what  it  took. 
Even  this  right  was  frequently  denied.  They  com- 
plained that  emancipation  was  confiscation. 

And  yet  President  Lincoln  never  did  a  more  com- 
plete act  of  justice  than  when  he  issued  his  procla- 
mation giving  emancipation  to  some  millions  of 
his  fellow  citizens,  recognizing  the  fact  that  justice 
demands  the  equal  application  to  all  men  of  the 
ascertained  sequences  associated  with  human  life, 
of  which  personal  freedom  is  an  essential  element. 

95 


But  if  the  destruction  of  land  ownership  be  con- 
fiscation under  the  law  of  justice,  what  special 
claim  have  landlords  for  exemption  over  other  peo- 
ple? Professors  of  political  economy  seem  to 
think  that  confiscation  only  fits  the  rich.  They 
never  protest  against  the  confiscation  of  the  poor 
man's  industry.  The  sacrifice  of  a  man's  labor, 
skill  and  subsistence,  in  fact,  all  that  he  has  to  live 
upon,  is  called  the  inevitable  result  of  social  pro- 
gress, never  confiscation,  and  no  one  proposes  re- 
muneration for  the  loss  sustained.  Then  why 
should  landlords  be  paid  for  what  they  never 
earned? 

Forty  years  ago  twenty  thousand  sober,  indus- 
trious, working  tailors  in  Whitechapel,  London, 
were  reduced  to  absolute  starvation  by  the  intro- 
duction of  the  sewing  machine.  To-day  the  lino- 
type machines  are  taking  bread  out  of  the  mouths 
of  thousands  of  intelligent  compositors,  who  have 
given  the  best  part  of  their  lives  to  the  faithful 
service  of  the  public,  and  now,  being  good  for 
nothing  else,  they  have  been  driven  down  to  the 
bare  subsistence  scale  of  wages  by  conditions  ut- 
terly beyond  their  own  control.  Why  should  not 
landlords,  who  have  enjoyed  so  many  comforts  in 
the  past,  be  made  also  to  fall  before  the  Jugger- 
naut of  human  progress?  The  slave-owners  fell, 
and  why  not  landlords  also? 

96 


But  the  sacrifice  demanded  is  not  all  loss.  The 
troubles  anticipated  by  the  slave-owners  have  not 
been  realized  or  have  had  their  compensation. 
They  are  no  longer  degraded  by  association  with 
slavery,  the  separation  of  children  from  their  par- 
ents and  the  cruel  whip.  They  have  been  human- 
ized and  freed  from  responsibilities  beyond  their 
power  to  discharge,  and  to-day  there  is  not  to  be 
found  a  slave-owner  of  forty  years  ago  who  would 
restore  the  institution. 

And  justice  will  be  equally  lenient  to  landlords, 
but  few  of  whom  will  be  reduced  to  common  labor, 
as  the  use  and  occupation  of  their  lands  will  re- 
main secure  and  they  will  not  be  deprived  of  im- 
provements henceforth  to  be  relieved  from  unjust 
taxation. 

Like  the  slave-owners,  the  landlords  will  be  freed 
from  an  odious  thraldom.  They  will  cease  to  be 
the  drones  of  social  life.  They  will  be  saved  the 
perjury  and  deception  by  which  they  now  shame- 
fully shift  the  burden  of  taxation  on  to  the 
shoulders  of  the  poor.  In  spite  of  themselves  they 
will  be  made  honest  men.  Deprived  of  rent,  the 
pious  thief  will  no  longer  be  able  to  steal  thirty 
millions  annually  from  the  earth,  which  is  the  pub- 
lic treasury  of  wealth,  and  he  will  no  longer 
have  need  to  bribe  legislators  or  to  establish  pro- 


97 


fessorships  of  political  economy  to  promote,  sus- 
tain and  justify  his  robberies. 

And  as  regards  the  recipients  of  justice.  The 
serfs  of  industrial  bondage  have  a  decided  advant- 
age over  the  slaves  of  the  past.  Freedom  was  for 
them  a  new  experience.  They  were  too  ignorant 
to  take  advantage  of  it.  But,  happily,  the  serfs 
of  industry  are  not  all  reduced  to  the  condition  of 
"The  Hoe"  man,  and  even  he  would  stand  upright 
and  have  an  upward  look  if  his  bondage  were  re- 
moved. 

Now,  the  application  of  rent  to  the  public  service 
and  the  relief  of  every  industry  from  taxation 
would  create  a  new  world,  both  for  the  producer 
and  consumer.  The  rent  of  the  oil  fields  would 
pay  the  war  tax,  and  the  rent  of  mines  the  current 
expenses  of  the  government,  and  as  rents  decline, 
wages,  being  complementary  thereto,  would  rise. 
Not  a  laborer  in  the  United  States  but  would  be 
able  to  provide  two  or  three  suits  of  clothes  where 
he  now  possesses  one.  The  impulse  given  to  com- 
merce and  manufactures  would  be  irresistible.  A 
home  market  would  be  created  ten  times  greater 
than  that  of  all  China  and  the  East.  As  Kropot- 
kin  says,  "let  your  factories  be  employed,  not  in 
supplying  the  wants  of  enslaved  Filipinos,  but  to 
satisfy  the  unsatisfied  needs  of  millions  of  Ameri- 
cans."   Over-production  would  become  impossible. 


Thus  the  quality  of  justice,  like  that  of  mercy,  is 
not  strained.  Whether  it  comes  like  dew  from 
heaven  upon  the  earth  beneath,  or  with  war,  fratri- 
cide and  death,  it  still  will  come  twice  blessed.  It 
blesseth  him  that  gives  and  him  that  takes.  The 
conclusion  is  clear.  All  rent  is  created  by  the 
activities  and  necessities  of  the  people.  It  belongs 
to  them,  and  in  justice  the  landlord  takes  nothing 
but  his  share  of  public  benefit.  Justice  has  no 
half-way  house.  It  never  compromises.  It  may 
be  denied  its  rights,  but  it  never  gives  them  up. 
It  takes  all  that  it  can  get,  but  is  never  satisfied 
until  all  special  privileges  are  utterly  destroyed. 
Governments,  therefore,  have  the  same  legal  and 
moral  right  to  abolish  private  ownership  of  land 
as  they  had  to  abolish  private  ownership  of  slaves. 
Nor  is  the  emancipation  of  the  serfs  as  hopeless 
now  as  was  the  emancipation  of  the  slaves  only 
fifty  years  ago.  Men  are  beginning  to  grow  wiser. 
The  industrial  classes  are  beginning  to  feel  their 
bondage.  They  are  commencing  to  realize  that 
land  is  no  man's  property  any  more  than  air  or 
sunshine.  They  see  that  the  productiveness  of 
land  is  enormously,  nay,  indefinitely,  increased  by 
human  industry,  and  that  justice  and  common 
sense  alike  demand  that  the  occupation  and  use  of 
land  shall  be  as  widely  and  equally  distributed  as 
possible  amongst  all  mankind.     They  see  that  the 

99 


single  tax  leaves  the  land  itself  intact,  does  not 
diminish  production  nor  imperil  permanence  of 
occupation.  It  simply  takes  the  rent  for  public 
use  and  destroys  the  privilege  of  private  owner- 
ship. 

Lastly,  the  single  tax  is  not  forcible  taxation. 
Unlike  the  cyclone,  which  is  violent,  destructive 
and  partial  in  its  operation,  the  single  tax  acts  like 
the  silent,  unfelt,  beneficent  pressure  of  the  atmos- 
phere. Industrial  taxation  operates  only  on  spe- 
cial classes  and  passes  by  the  landlords,  who  are 
protected  by  their  rent.  But  the  single  tax  oper- 
ates universally  on  all.  No  one  can  possibly  es- 
cape. No  one  can  shirk  his  duty.  No  one  can  shift 
the  burden  on  another's  shoulders,  and  the  pres- 
sure will  not  be  felt,  being  equal  in  all  directions 
and  perfectly  adjusted  to  the  advantages  received. 

Now,  in  face  of  the  certain  fact  that  the  land- 
lords will  lose  their  grip  upon  the  ballot-box, 
which  must  soon  become  the  impregnable  fortress 
of  human  independence,  and  that  producers  and 
consumers  number  ten  to  one  against  their  ene- 
mies, the  landlords,  there  is  not  only  hope  but  cer- 
tainty of  eventual  victory.  So,  when  the  indus- 
trial classes  come  to  know  and  have  courage  and 
independence  to  exercise  their  power,  social  agree- 
ment will  be  forced  to  change  the  statute,  which  is 
all  we  want.     (S.) 

100 


Note  21. — The  rise  in  land  values  was  excep- 
tional. California  was  treasure  trove,  and  di- 
vided up  by  the  law  of  bushwhackers.     (J.) 

In  every  city  in  the  world  land  values  have  risen, 
ceteris  paribus,  in  proportion  to  population  and 
the  necessities  and  activities  of  the  people.  They 
have  increased  more  in  Chicago  than  in  San  Fran- 
cisco. San  Francisco,  in  fact,  presents  an  excep- 
tion which  supports  the  rule,  for  while  population 
has  increased  during  the  last  ten  years  land  values 
have  declined,  because  speculators  had  created  a 
fictitious  boom.     (S.) 

Note  22. — There  are  two  sides  to  this  picture. 
Public  money  which  does  not  cost  makes  irre- 
sponsible waste.     (J.) 

There  is  no  public  money  which  does  not  cost 
brains,  strength,  and  industry,  and  those  who 
make  it  have  the  right  to  dispose  of  it  at  will.     (S.) 

Note  23. — A  stable  lease  would  permit  develop- 
ment. A  long  lease  has  often  been  regarded  as 
substantial  ownership.  It  is  therefore  prohibited 
in  California.     (J.) 

This  is  surely  a  condemnation  of  private  owner- 
ship in  any  form.     (S.) 

Note  2!}. — Society  cannot  separate  legally  from 
rightfully.  (J.) 

101 


The  misfortune  is  that  it  does  so  all  the  time. 
Legally  is  human  law,  edicts,  or  ordinances;  right- 
fully is  ascertained  sequences.  Legally  is  un- 
stable, one  thing  one  day  and  something  else  the 
next;  rightfully  is  permanent  and  unalterable. 
Legally  is  quite  as  often  wrong  as  right;  right- 
fully is  always  right.  Civilization  advances  as 
the  two  approximate,  and  when  they  coalesce  we 
will  have  nothing  to  complain  of.     (S.) 

Note  25. — So  do  the  weaker  live  upon  the  strong. 
If  there  were  no  weak,  life  would  be  easier  for  the 
strong.     (J.) 

The  weak  only  exist,  they  do  not  live  upon  the 
strong,  and  the  uniform  result  is  that  the  few 
strong  get  stronger  and  the  many  weak  get 
weaker.     (S.) 

Note  26. — Difficult  problems,  not  to  be  solved  on 
economic  lines.     (J.) 

But  cannot  be  solved  on  any  other  lines,  because 
the  economy  of  simple  existence  stands  before 
every  other  consideration.     (S.) 

Note  27.— Not  true.     (J.) 

Hunger  is  the  chief  cause  of  crime,  drunkenness 
and  ignorance.  It  is  impossible  to  teach  a  hungry 
child  or  get  effective  labor  out  of  a  hungry  man. 
Sufficient  food  is  the  one  absolute  condition  of  an 

102 


independent  life,  and  its  provision  is  a  question  of 
economics  (vide  note  12).     (S.) 

Note  28. — Industrial  bondage  is  one  of  the 
smallest  factors  in  human  misery.     (J.) 

It  is  the  fundamental  factor,  because  industrial 
freedom  is  the  basis  of  economics  and  of  independ- 
ent life.     (S.) 

Note  29. — The  law  of  wages  tending  to  the  bare 
subsistence  point,  called  "natural"  by  Stuart  Mill. 

(S.) 
It  is  natural,  that  is,  the  wage  system  so  works. 

(J.) 

It  is  not  natural,  because  the  antecedents  are 
neither  constant  nor  necessary,  nor  are  the  results 
uniform.     (S.) 

Note  SO. — All  natural  laws  make  for  more  and 
better  life  among  men.     (S.) 

Certainly  I  deny  this.  There  are  laws  of  decay 
as  well  as  of  growth.     (J.) 

Vide  note  12.     (S.) 

Note  31. — Who  takes  the  wealth  produced  indi- 
vidually and  collectively  by  the  laboring  classes? 
Are  they  not  governments,  landlords,  millionaires, 
trusts  and  corporations?     (S.) 

Also  idlers,  beggars,  paupers  and  unskilled 
laborers.     (J.) 

103 


Yes,  but  the  one  obtain  their  wealth  by  means 
of  special  privilege  and  force,  and  the  others  can- 
not help  themselves  while  social  agreement  denies 
them  equal  opportunity  to  earn  their  share  by 
labor.     (S.) 

SOCIAL    PBOGRESS. 

Note  32. — Yet  in  no  land  and  at  no  time  of  the 
world  was  the  condition  less  unfavorble.     (J.) 

On  a  superficial  view  this  seems  to  be  entirely 
true.  Everywhere  we  recognize  the  marvelous 
growth  of  wealth  and  luxury,  the  numerous  inven- 
tions of  labor-saving  machinery,  the  harnessing  of 
natural  forces  to  the  service  of  mankind,  the  stu- 
pendous advance  of  Art  and  Science,  the  rapid 
construction  of  cities  provided  with  all  the  con- 
veniences and  luxuries  of  modern  life,  the  im- 
provement of  sanitation  and  the  prolongation  of 
human  life;  and  last,  but  by  no  means  least,  the 
extension  of  education,  especially  in  the  higher 
branches. 

But  none  of  these  are  evidence  that  justice  is  in- 
creasing between  man  and  man.  They  therefore 
afford  no  proof  that  the  real  condition  of  society 
is  better  now  than  it  ever  was  before.  Nor  is  the 
conclusion  supported  by  any  past  experience,  for 
whenever  the  power  of  a  class  has  grown  up  under 
the  fostering  wing  of  special  privilege,  whenever 
wealth  has  accumulated  in  the  hands  of   drones 

104 


and  non-producers,  whenever  land  and  its  products 
have  become  the  property  of  a  comparatively  few 
monopolists,  poverty  and  dependence  have  invari- 
ably grown  faster  than  the  wealth  and  luxury. 
And  not  all  the  pomp  of  power,  not  all  the  forces 
of  civilization  have  been  able  to  stifle  the  fire  of  in- 
justice and  oppression  raging  underneath  the  sur- 
face, and  no  nation  has  been  able  to  withstand  the 
explosion  which  eventually  took  place.  In  spite 
then  of  all  appearances,  it  may  yet  be  true  that 
the  condition  of  society,  even  in  this  favored  land, 
was  never  more  unfavorable  than  it  is  to-day. 

Neither  wealth  nor  education  can  be  regarded 
as  tests  of  social  progress.  Andrew  Carnegie  says 
that  it  is  certain  that  the  men  who  do  the  work  do 
not  get  rich.  Wealth  does  not  justly  come  to  its 
producers.  The  rich  become  richer  and  the  poor 
poorer.  And  education,  without  industrial  free- 
dom for  its  basis,  only  creates  desires  and  ambi- 
tions more  rapidly  than  the  means  for  satisfaction. 
In  that  case  men  become  discontented  and  are 
tempted  to  live  by  their  superior  wit  on  the  in- 
dustry of  others  rather  than  their  own,  which 
tends  to  robbery  and  crime.  The  decrease  of  in- 
justice between  man  and  man  is  the  only  measure 
of  sound  progress,  and  this  is  attested  by  the  de- 
crease of  poverty  and  its  consequences,  which  may 
be  easily  observed. 

105 


"To  make  men  good  and  kind  and  noble,  and  to 
give  them  independence,  it  is  necessary,  first  and 
foremost,  to  satisfy  their  material  wants.  When 
one's  whole  time  and  energy  are  needed  to  fight 
for  the  necessaries  of  life,  there  is  no  opportunity 
for  the  cultivation  of  those  higher  qualities  which 
distinguish  men  from  brutes.  Poverty  is  not  a 
genial  soil  for  culture.  Only  the  weeds  of  igno- 
rance can  thrive  on  it.  There  are  no  moral  con- 
siderations in  the  presence  of  starvation;  no  in- 
tellectual needs  while  material  wants  remain  un- 
satisfied."    ("The  Story  of  My  Dictatorship.") 

(Moreover,  the  worst  forms  of  poverty  do  not 
appear  upon  the  surface  for  "to  be  poor  and  seem 
poor"  is  repugnant  to  all  men,  especially  to  men  of 
education,  who  therefore  cover  up  their  needs. 
Poverty  may  be  best  discovered  by  its  inseparable 
associates,  first,  involuntary  and  unnatural  indo- 
lence, the  consequence  of  insufficient  or  unwhole- 
some food,  and  bad  environment,  a  form  of  indo- 
lence which  soon  becomes  habitual  and  heredi- 
tary; then  loss  of  self-respect  and  independence, 
then  crime  and  immorality  in  every  form. 

To  the  needs  of  poverty  and  to  the  artificially- 
created  needs  of  fashion  equally  imperative, 
women  sacrifice  their  virtue,  merchants  their 
credit,  educated  men  their  honor,  and  all  of  them 
seek  the  use  of   artificial  stimuli    to  raise   their 

106 


drooping  spirits  or  to  excite  their  exhausted  bodies 
for  more  exertion.  But  once  give  men  justice, 
once  give  them  equal  opportunity  to  take  the  bene- 
fits of  natural  law,  which  are  more  than  sufficient 
for  the  satisfaction  of  their  material  needs,  once 
banish  poverty,  and  the  fear  of  poverty,  and 
human  nature  may  be  safely  trusted  for  the  rest. 
But  let  us  examine  the  question  from  a  practical 
point  of  view,  taking  the  City  of  San  Francisco  as 
a  good  example.  Here,  if  any  where,  the  progress 
of  social  organization  may  be  definitely  seen.  For 
here  we  have  the  capital  of  a  State,  the  richest  in 
natural  resources  upon  earth,  whose  mountains 
are  loaded  with  gold  and  precious  minerals,  and 
whose  valleys  are  so  fertile  that  a  hundred  inhabi- 
tants could  be  sustained  in  comfort,  where  there  is 
only  one  to-day.  A  city  built  upon  the  foreshore  of 
one  of  the  finest  harbors  in  the  world — the  Golden 
Gate  to  the  Pacific  Ocean — the  open  doorway  to 
the  commerce  of  the  Orient.  To  this  glorious  spot 
came  a  community  selected  by  the  law  of  evolu- 
tion. Invalids  died  by  thousands  on  the  way,  and 
dullards  stayed  at  home.  All  men  came  with  an 
equal  chance.  Lawyers,  doctors,  bankers,  and  di- 
vines worked  side  by  side  with  miners,  teamsters 
and  common  laborers;  there  was  work  and  oppor- 
tunity for  all,  and  this  active  and  intelligent  com- 
munity has  been  continually  reinforced  by  men  of 

107 


energy  and   intelligence  from  every  region   upon 
earth. 

There  was  much  open  land,  and  the  incomers 
were  few  and  contented.  But  we  have  seen  that 
the  city  began  with  an  unjust  appropriation  by  a 
few  individuals  of  all  the  land  in  sight,  and  when, 
after  a  quarter  of  a  century,  all  the  useful  land  in 
the  State  was  similarly  taken  up,  a  change  began, 
and,  if  the  change  has  worked  righteously  and 
well,  if  the  condition  of  society  is  really  less  un- 
favorable, we  may  reasonably  expect,  due  allow- 
ance being  made  for  the  increase  of  population, 
that  there  is  now  less  poverty,  less  crime,  less  im- 
morality, less  need  of  policemen,  jails  and  alms 
houses,  and  proof  beyond  doubt  that  the  condi- 
tion of  the  mass  of  citizens  is  becoming  less  and 
less  unfavorable  every  year. 

Now,  in  1874  the  millionaires  were  few  in  num- 
ber, but  have  since  then  steadily  increased.  No 
one  has  lived  in  the  City  during  the  last  quarter  of 
a  century  can  doubt  that  the  few  rich  have  become 
richer,  and  as  they  have  long  since  ceased  to  be 
producers,  their  wealth  has  accumulated  at  the 
expense  of  other  people.  They  have  taken  toll  of 
the  collective  industry  of  their  fellow  citizens  in 
the  shape  of  rent,  and  to-day  the  industrial  classes 
of  San  Francisco  pay  the   landlords  twenty  mil- 


108 


lions  annually  before  they  get  a  bite  of  food  for 
themselves  and  families. 

Forty  per  cent,  of  the  municipal  and  State  taxa- 
tion is  also  paid  directly  by  the  industrial  classes, 
besides  poll  tax  and  their  contribution  to  real  es- 
tate taxation  making  up  the  whole.  Besides  this 
they  pay  the  larger  portion  of  Federal  taxation, 
all  of  which  is  paid  by  the  consumers.  Under 
these  conditions  poverty  cannot  possibly  diminish. 
The  landlords  take  the  cream,  and  leave  to  the  rest 
skim  milk. 

And  now  examine  the  return  of  crime.  The  fol- 
lowing figures  are  taken  from  the  Municipal  Ee- 
ports : 

1874.  1898.     £~- 

Population 200,770  360,000  79 

Number  of  Police 121  559  362 

Arrests  by  Police 13,000  29,168  112 

"       of  Drunkards 5,092  12,738  150 

"       for  Burglary 124  274  121 

"       for  Grand  Larceny..  149  290  94 

Divorce    Suits 428  911  112 

Suicides   56  146  160 

Inmates  of  Alms  House 340  912  168 

Inmates  of  State  Prison...  931  2,207  127 

Every  one  of  these  items  affords  indisputable 
evidence  of  increasing  poverty,  and  every  one  in- 
dicates that  the  condition  of  society  is  steadily 
growing  worse  notwithstanding  the  increase  of 


109 


wealth  and  knowledge,  and  the  advance  of  educa- 
tion. 

This  conclusion  is  also  supported  by  strong  in- 
dividual testimony.  The  Rev.  Father  McDonnel 
writes:  "I  am  by  no  means  a  pessimist,  but  for 
fifteen  years  I  have  lived  among  the  poor,  and  talk- 
ed and  felt  with  them.  I  cannot  find  one  person 
to  deny  that  the  industrial  conditions  were  not 
more  favorable  in  1874  than  in  1899.  It  is  now 
much  more  difficult  to  obtain  employment,  wages 
have  steadily  declined,  and  are  going  down  every 
year.  The  reduction  of  prices  of  necessaries  and 
luxuries  is  not  in  the  same  proportion.  The  work- 
ing classes  are  certainly  more  dissatisfied  with 
their  condition  now  than  ever  before  in  the  history 
of  the  world.  This  dissatisfaction  is  growing  year- 
ly. Cases  of  involuntary  destitution  are  very  fre- 
quent. I  have  known  cases  of  voluntary  death  by 
starvation,  and  I  should  say  that  want  of  employ- 
ment is  often  a  cause  of  suicide." 

Mr.  Fitzgerald,  for  many  years  connected  with 
the  laboring  class,  and  now  State  Labor  Commis- 
sioner, says:  "The  strongest  evidence  of  the  in- 
creasing economic  pressure  is  the  invasion  of 
women  into  nearly  every  employment,  for  women 
only  go  to  the  workshops  as  a  last  resource.  In 
my  experience,  I  have  found  employment  for 
18,000  workers,  and  I  can  say  with  truth  that  there 

no 


is  no  position  so  hard  and  laborious,  no  hours  so 
long,  and  no  wages  so  poor  and  insufficient,  which 
I  could  not  fill  in  forty-eight  hours'  notice,  pro- 
vided food  and  shelter  were  included.  Only  a  few 
years  ago  the  coalworkers  of  Pennsylvania  offered 
to  contract  their  services  for  life,  if  the  mine  own- 
ers would  engage  to  provide  them  with  the  neces- 
saries of  life.  According  to  my  experience  eco- 
nomic pressure  is  increasing  every  day." 

To  this  important  testimony  let  me  add  my  own: 
In  1874  I  was  staying  in  the  country,  and  was  in- 
troduced to  "the  lady"  who  condescended  to  do  my 
laundry  at  25c.  a  piece.  In  the  same  year  in  the 
city,  we  all  paid  invalids  25c.  for  cleaning  boots, 
a  service  now  rendered  by  able-bodied  men  for  5c, 
and  there  are  hundreds  of  competitors  at  that. 
The  invalids  are  now  either  begging  in  the  streets 
or  have  been  driven  to  the  Alms  House.  Unlike 
military  pressure,  economic  pressure  takes  away 
the  weak.  In  1874  the  wages  of  farm  hands  were 
$30  a  month  with  board  and  lodging  in  the  winter, 
and  $60  in  the  summer.  Now  they  are  $5  a  month 
in  the  winter,  and  from  $15  to  $20  in  the  summer, 
and  there  still  remains  an  army  of  tramps,  and  in- 
volutary  disemployed.  In  1874  country  people 
never  locked  their  doors;  to-day  none  but  the 
foolish  leave  them  open.  In  1874  the  number  of 
defaulting  bankers  and   municipal   officials  were 

ill 


not  comparable  with  the  same  to-day.  The  num- 
ber of  "misfits"  seems  to  be  steadily  increasing  in 
every  profession.  In  1874  I  had  no  difficulty  in 
collecting  fees  from  even  the  poorer  classes;  now 
the  rush  to  hospitals  and  polyclinics  for  gratuitous 
advice  is  overwhelming. 

But,  after  all,  what  is  the  truest  test  of  the  eco- 
nomic condition  of  the  body  politic?  Surely,  that 
it  secures  the  existence  and  reasonable  comfort  of 
all  its  members;  and  the  question  is,  do  intelli- 
gent, able  and  industrious  people  ever  succumb  to 
involuntary  destitution?  Most  certainly  they  do. 
In  San  Francisco  such  deaths  are  increasing  in 
number  every  year  out  of  all  proportion  to  the  in- 
crease of  population. 

Let  me  give  an  illustrationn :  In  January  last 
Mr.  and  Mrs.  T.  arrived  in  San  Francisco  with  two 
young  children.  He  was  sober,  steady,  indus- 
trious, and  had  been  prosperous.  He  failed  to  ob- 
tain employment,  but  his  wife  secured  work  as  a 
seamstress.  Her  earnings,  however,  were  insuf- 
ficient for  the  family  support,  and  she  denied  her- 
self necessary  food.  After  16  hours'  work,  with- 
out food,  she  went  to  her  husband,  and  exclaimed: 
"Oh!  the  pain  of  it.  I  am  fainting;  dying  for 
want  of  food";  and  sinking  on  the  floor  she  was 
picked  up  dead.  There  is  here  no  evidence  of 
hereditary  taint,  no  evidence  of  ignorance — a  case 

112 


which  neither  charity  nor  poor  laws  can  provide 
for  or  prevent.  A  case  due  to  economic  conditions 
unfavorable  to  the  maintenance  of  life,  conditions 
absolutely  destructive  of  personal  independence; 
conditions  created  by  society  itself,  and  which  be- 
come worse  and  worse  the  longer  they  exist  and 
the  more  perfectly  they  are  carried  out. 

But  in  San  Francisco  to-day  there  is  direct  evi- 
dence of  a  still  more  pitiable  poverty — more  un- 
bearable than  any  which  has  before  presented 
itself  in  any  land  or  in  any  time  of  human  history, 
for  men  and  women  are  driven  almost  daily  to  a 
voluntary  self-inflicted  death  by  inability  to  ob- 
tain employment.  They  prefer  suicide  to  depend- 
ence on  others — sure  evidence  that  they  are 
neither  ignorant  nor  idle.  Let  me  give  some  illus- 
trations which  have  occurred  during  the  last  few 
months: 

R.  R.,  Aet  42,  had  a  wife  and  two  children.  He 
was  a  hard  working,  industrious  and  sober  man. 
He  took  whatever  work  offered  and  was  able  to 
support  his  wife  and  family.  Work  becoming 
scarce,  destitution  stared  him  in  the  face,  and  he 
hanged  himself. 

E.  H.  W.,  Aet  60,  a  foundryman,  unable  to  ob- 
tain work,  hanged  himself. 

Miss  G.,  Aet  50,  a  nurse  of  experience  and  good 
character,    not    obtaining    work,    and   being    re- 

113 


quested  to  vacate  her  lodgings,  hanged  herself. 

F.  I.,  Aet  45,  a  laborer,  unable  to  find  employ- 
ment, jumped  into  the  bay.  When  rescued  he  de- 
clined to  state  whether  he  would  make  another 
attempt  to  end  his  life. 

G.  W.  K.  came  to  San  Francisco  at  the  beginning 
of  the  year  in  search  of  work.  He  brought  several 
credentials  as  a  steady  man,  attentive  to  his  duties 
and  entirely  satisfactory  to  his  employers.  He 
wrote  an  excellent  hand  and  was  fairly  educated. 
He  kept  a  diary.  On  February  11th  he  went  to 
work  cutting  timber.  After  a  week  he  was  seized 
with  chills  and  fever  and  had  to  quit.  He  rode  on 
the  train  a  little  way  and  then  walked.  He  slept 
in  a  shanty  and  walked  to  Albion  next  day,  "but  it 
was  a  hard  pull  over  the  mountains."  Next  day 
tried  to  walk  to  Point  Arenas,  but  had  to  stop  five 
miles  from  it;  too  tired  to  go  any  further.  Slept 
in  a  barn.  February  24,  arrived  at  Point  Arenas  at 
11 :30.  Got  dinner,  most  awful  hungry.  February 
27,  arrived  in  San  Francisco  at  3  a.  m. ;  remained 
on  board  boat  till  7  a.  m. 

Went  to  S.  V.  W.  W.  for  work.    No  go. 

March  1.    Found  nothing  yet. 

March  2.    Nothing  without  money  to  pay  for  it. 

March  3.    No  chance  of  getting  anything  to  do. 

What  will  I  do?    No  money,  no  friends,  no  work. 
Sick  with  heart  trouble.    God  help  me. 

114 


March  7.     Cannot  find  anything  to  do  yet. 

March  8.  Am  living  on  doughnuts;  5  cents  a 
day.    I  don't  know  where  to  go  or  what  to  do. 

March  9.     My  last  quarter  gone  for  room  rent. 

March  10.  God  help  me;  have  only  5  cents  left. 
Can  get  nothing  to  do.  What  next — starvation 
or 

March  11.  Went  to  see  about  two  places  this 
morning  the  first  thing,  but  had  a  chill  at  the  time, 
so  could  not  get  it.  Sick  all  day;  this  morning 
chill,  and  burning  fever  in  the  afternoon.  Nothing 
to  eat  to-day,  since  yesterday  morning.  I'll  have 
to  starve  or  die  now. 

And  he  carefully  stuffed  up  the  keyhole  and 
turned  on  the  gas. 

How  one  must  admire  the  courage  of  the  man. 
Hungry,  chilled  and  feverish  from  want  of  food, 
one  meal  in  many  days,  he  nevertheless  presents 
himself  for  work,  hoping  to  the  last. 

Now,  I  confidently  defy  the  production  of  any 
such  cases  among  the  four  and  a  half  millions  of 
inhabitants  of  London.  In  all  my  experience  in 
the  early  forties,  when  in  my  native  town,  twenty 
per  cent,  of  the  people  lived  on  public  charity, 
where  I  have  seen  hundreds  die  from  starvation, 
the  result  of  economic  pressure,  I  never  saw  a 
suicide  death  to  escape  that  pressure.  In  the 
slums  of  Whitechapel,  Bethnal  Green   and   Hol- 

115 


horn,  where  I  was  for  some  years  a  guardian  of  the 
poor,  I  never  saw  suicide  as  the  result  of  destitu- 
tion, and  yet  within  the  last  few  months  in  San 
Francisco,  where  the  citizens  spent  a  quarter  of  a 
million  for  ten  days'  opera,  such  suicides  are  of 
constant  occurrence.  They  form  a  large  propor- 
tion of  the  enormous  increase  of  suicides  of  the 
last  few  years.  It  is  not  the  death  chosen  by 
thieves  and  paupers  and  the  dependent  classes,  but 
the  death  of  intelligent,  self-respecting  men  driven 
to  desperation  by  the  inexorable  conditions  of  so- 
ciety, in  which  justice  has  no  place.  My  conclu- 
sion is  that  in  spite  of  all  appearances  the  eco- 
nomic condition  of  the  mass  of  the  people  was 
never  less  unfavorable  than  it  is  to-day. 

Note  33. — Sufficient  education,  wisdom  and 
thought  frees  any  man.     (J.) 

Not  without  sufficient  food.     (S.) 

Note  3Jf. — This  is  true.  But  he  added  no  new 
facts,  and  no  new  deductions.  He  advanced  our 
knowledge  of  economics  in  no  appreciable  degree. 

(J.) 

Henry  George  never  claimed  originality.  But 
he  has  revolutionized  the  science  of  political  econ- 
omy. He  has  fully  and  successfully  exposed  the 
fallacies,  confusions,  and  want  of  scientific  accu- 
racy to  be  found  in  all  accepted  treatises  and  text- 

116 


books,  particularly  with  regard  to  wealth,  value, 
etc.  For  the  first  time  a  distinction  has  been  accu- 
rately made  between  human  and  natural  law,  the 
one  being  the  mutable  will  of  man,  the  other  the 
immutable  will  of  God,  He  has  shown  that  true 
science  deals  only  with  natural  laws,  and  that  with 
human  laws,  except  as  furnishing  illustrations  and 
subjects  for  investigation,  the  science  of  political 
economy  has  nothing  whatever  to  do;  that  it  is  the 
science  of  the  maintenance  and  nutriment  of  the 
body  politic,  that  is,  of  man's  relation  to  the 
earth. 

That  this  relation  is  independent  of  moral, 
ethical  and  political  considerations,  and  that  the 
due  adjustment  of  their  relation  lies  at  the  founda- 
tion of  all  scientific  economics  and  social  progress. 
He  shows  that  the  facts  and  conditions  of  this  re- 
lationship constitute  a  series  of  definite  sequences 
which  we  describe  as  natural  law,  and  this  natural 
law  is  the  only  true  basis  of  economics  ever  pro- 
mulgated. 

His  "divine  authority"  is  simply  metaphor  for 
"natural  law"  or  ascertained  sequences,  and  his 
moral  law  simply  justice  between  man  and  man. 
Thus,  political  economy  has  been  taken  from  "the 
dreamy  and  indefinite"  and  established  for  the 
first  time  on  a    scientific  basis.     This    service  is 


117 


alone  sufficient  to  place  Henry  George  amongst  the 
most  distinguished  scientists  of  modern  times. 

(S.) 

Note  35. — And  so  has  Christian  science,  homeo- 
pathy, vegetarianism,  transubstantiation.  All 
that  brings  healing,  happiness  or  the  millenium 
in  some  way  easier  than  your  way  or  mine.     (J.) 

Proof  that  results  must  always  be  corrected  by 
deductive  reasoning  from  the  sequences  of  natural 
law.     (S.) 

Note  36. — I  do  not  doubt  the  wisdom  of  taxing 
unearned  increment  rather  than  industry;  but  I 
do  not  think  that  George's  method  of  argument 
has  added  anything  permanent.  He  was  a 
preacher,  and  his  converts,  when  they  are  numer- 
ous enough  to  try  his  experiments,  will  demon- 
strate its  good  and  evil  results.     (J.) 

I  submit  respectfully  that  George's  argument  of 
divine  authority,  which  in  fact  is  natural  law,  is  at 
}east  as  good  and  more  reliable  than  the  argument 
from  social  agreement,  which  is  human  law.  Any- 
way, I  am  delighted  that  you  acknowledge  the  wis- 
dom of  taxing  unearned  increment  rather  than  in- 
dustry. I  have  also  little  doubt  that  with  further 
thought  you  will  realize  the  crass  folly  of  taxing 
any  form  of  industry,  as  if  there  could  be  too  much 

118 


wealth  created.     Even  now  I  may  say  truly  that 
thou  art  almost  persuaded  to  be  a  single  taxer. 

Note  37. — I  do  not  refer  to  the  tax  on  land  value 
in  these  words,  but  to  the  argument  drawn  from 
divine  intention  in  their  interest.     (J.) 

Is  not  this  a  quibble  about  words?  Divine  au- 
thority and  the  purposes  of  nature  are  simply  in- 
definite metaphors,  intended  to  express  natural 
law,  just  as  natural  law  is  metaphor  representing 
definite  sequences  of  particular  events.     (S.) 

Note  38. — Instead  of  "general  law,"  put  facts 
and  conditions  in  the  community  or  race  in  ques- 
tion.    (J.) 

In  no  community  or  race  would  facts  or  condi- 
tions provide  reliable  wisdom  or  a  sure  guide  for 
action. 

Note  39. — No  "law"  makes  for  anything  else 
than  cosmic  order.     (J.) 

Ascertained  sequences  undoubtedly  make  for 
cosmic  order.  The  "law"  of  human  life  is  an  ex- 
ample or  the  law  of  gravitation.  But  human 
"law"  continually  makes  for  cosmic  disorder.  The 
bare  subsistence  "law"  of  wages  is  a  good  example, 
and  makes  for  starvation,  misery  and  death.     (S.) 

Note  ],0.— Why  not?  What  are  taxes  for?  To 
improve  land?     (J.) 

119 


Taxes  are  imposed  to  satisfy  social  wants.  If 
there  is  no  society,  there  are  no  social  wants  and 
no  taxation.  Until  a  man  becomes  a  citizen  his 
land  has  no  value.  There  is  no  market,  no  hig- 
gling. His  industrial  products  are  all  his  own 
And  on  the  principle  of  justice  are  free  from  taxa- 
tion for  the  benefit  of  other  people. 

-v  ote  41. — It  expands,  but  not  necessarily  in  pro- 
portion.    (J.) 

"Cateris  paribus"  and  practically  in  exact  pro- 
portion.    (S.) 

Note  42. — The  single  tax  would  not  be  adequate 
in  mountain  districts  to  make  them  inhabitable. 

(J.) 

They  would  remain  deserted  until  a  mine  was 
found.     (S.) 

Note  43. — Who  made  that  law?  It  is  desirable, 
but  not  a  "law."     (J.) 

It  is  the  "law"  of  justice  which  secures  to  every 
laborer  the  absolute  possession  and  disposal  of  the 
product  of  his  own  exertion.     (S.) 

Note  JfJf. — It  is  not  robbery  if  agreed  to  by  the 
parties  concerned.  It  may  or  may  not  be  wise, 
that  is  a  question  of  fact.  But  one  is  no  more 
divine  and  no  more  robbery  than  the  other.     (J.) 

120 


But  the  consent  must  be  intelligently  and  volun- 
tarily given,  with  adequate  compensation.  To 
take  from  people  who  are  asleep  or  ignorant  of 
their  just  rights  only  aggravates  the  robbery. 
Stanford  improvements  are  unjustly  taxed,  in 
spite  of  the  protest  of  the  Trustees,  and  the  tax  is 
paid  under  duress  of  human  edict,  which  does  not 
make  it  just.  The  tax  on  land  value  you  acknowl- 
edge to  be  wise,  and  this  is  so  because  it  is  estab- 
lished on  the  principle  of  justice  between  man  and 
man.  But  the  tax  on  beer  taxes  one  man  for  the 
privilege  of  drinking  beer,  whilst  by  so  much  other 
citizens  are  relieved  of  taxation.  This  distinctly 
is  not  equal  treatment,  and  therefore  is  not  justice. 
In  straight  English,  it  is  nothing  less  than  rob- 
bery. If  justice  is  divine,  the  tax  on  land  value  is 
also  divine,  but  avowedly  the  tax  on  beer  is  not. 

(S.) 

Note  Jf5. — Because  they  suffer  all  collective 
losses.     (J.) 

No.  They  charge  insurance  against  loss  and  put 
it  in  the  contract.     (S.) 

Note  46. — Capitalists  are  the  bucaneers  of  in- 
dustry.    (S.) 

And  also  its  makers.  Laborers  do  not  make  the 
conditions  under  which  they  work.     (J.) 


121 


Capital  promotes  but  does  not  make  industry, 
but  industry  alone  makes  capital.  Employers  and 
employed  both  work  under  the  conditions  given 
them.     (S.) 

Note  47. — This  is  true  only  in  part.  Unless 
wisely  controlled,  collective  labor  cannot  produce 
wealth.    (J.) 

Very  little  wealth  can  be  produced  without 
it.     (S.) 

Note  .£8. — No,  it  is  not  robbery  until  we  can 
legally  forbid  it  by  devising  something  better.    (J.) 

If  taken  unjustly,  it  is  robbery  if  we  had  twenty 
other  plans.  The  collective  co-partnership  is  hope- 
lessly handicapped  by  the  privileges  of  landlords 
and  capitalists,  who  take  all  the  traffic  will  bear. 

(S.) 

Note  J/9. — When  men  are  wise  enough  to  co- 
operate intelligently,  they  can  free  themselves 
from  the  cost  of  control.     (J.) 

They  will.     (S.) 

Note  50. — They  will  it  as  they  fit  themselves  for 
it.     (J.) 

And  the  opportunity  will  make  them  fit.     (S.) 

Note  51. — Industrial  freedom  must  be  individual 
and  personal.    (J.) 

122 


It  must  also  be  collective  and  general.  That 
which  is  true  of  "all  men"  as  individuals,  must 
also  be  true  of  "all  men"  collectively.  All  free- 
dom is  individual  and  personal,  whether  intellec- 
tual, industrial  or  political.  This  is  all  I  contend 
for.     (S.) 

Note  52. — Universities  are  only  places  for  inves- 
tigation. They  utter  no  protests  as  universities. 
But  every  fact  is  investigated,  one  as  impartially 
as  the  other.  For  "a  priori"  theories  investigators 
care  nothing.  Economists  have  studied  carefully 
all  methods  of  taxation  possible  and  impossible, 
with  no  more  prejudice  than  you  have,  each  with 
such  power  as  was  given  him  to  search  out  truth. 
That  they  regard  the  "Single  Tax"  as  at  best  a 
choice  of  evils,  is  because  no  facts  have  taught 
them  the  reverse.  All  this  is  matter  of  opinion. 
Stanford  stands  for  the  search  of  truth.  It  has  en- 
gaged the  ablest  economists  it  could  find  and  pay 
for.  Of  these,  Dr.  Warner  was  pre-eminent  in  all 
matters  he  touched.  Ross  and  Durand  are  not 
bigots,  nor  does  any  influence  check  their  freedom 
of  thought  and  speech.     (J.) 

Admitting  that  universities  are  only  places  for 
investigation,  and  that  they  utter  no  protests  as 
universities,  all  that  can  be  reasonably  expected 
is,  that  their  investigations  shall  be  impartial,  and 

123 


the  results  declared  and  advocated  consistently 
with  truth  and  justice.  But  scientific  investigators 
do  not  ignore  hypothesis,  for  without  its  help 
scientific  progress  would  be  extremely  slow,  and 
with  its  help  some  of  the  grandest  results  have 
been  obtained.  If  the  law  of  independent  and  col- 
lective human  life  wTere  nothing  but  hypothesis, 
which  is  not  true,  it  might  still  be  worth  serious 
consideration,  and  might  lead  to  magnificent  prac- 
tical results,  particularly  as  the  present  condition 
of  society  is  by  no  means  satisfactory. 

But  to  declare  that  (economic)  facts  are  investi- 
gated with  impartiality,  and  that  economists  have 
carefully  studied  all  methods  of  taxation,  possible 
and  impossible,  without  prejudice,  each  with  such 
power  as  was  given  him  to  search  out  truth,  seems 
to  me  impossible.  For  are  not  many  of  the  Uni- 
versities of  America  founded  by  Landlords,  Mo- 
nopolists, and  Millionaires,  who  make  the  profes- 
sors possible,  and  pay  their  salaries?  Are  not  all 
American  professors  supported  by  the  spoils  and 
robberies  of  the  landlord  system  and  by  unjust 
taxation?  How  shall  professors  so  placed  be  ex- 
pected to  kill  the  goose  which  lays  the  golden 
eggs?  Fancy  a  professor,  created  and  supported 
by  a  Rockefeller,  turning  round  and  telling  his 
patron  that  he  was  going  to  teach  the  students 
economic  justice  under  the  operation  of  the  Sin- 

124 


gle  Tax,  and  that  Mr.  Rockefeller  has  no 
more  title  to  the  oil  he  steals  from  the  public  trea- 
sury of  wealth  than  the  most  miserable  infant 
born  in  the  slums  of  New  York.  How  could  he  say 
that  he  would  tell  his  students  how  to  destroy  land 
ownership,  how  to  put  an  end  to  unjust  monoplies, 
how  to  distribute  natural  benefits  more  equally 
among  the  people,  and  prevent  all  future  public 
robberies? 

Professors  appointed  under  such  conditions  ac- 
cept the  collar  of  the  millionaire.  Their  province 
is  to  bolster  up  the  actions  of  their  patron  and  to 
invent  specious  arguments  against  the  justice  of 
the  public  claim.  If  the  benefits  of  land  occupa- 
tion belong  in  justice  to  the  people  as  a  whole,  it 
is  the  people  who  will  have  to  take  them,  for  there 
is  no  hope  in  university  professors  who  are  subor- 
dinate to  millionaires. 

But  I  have  declared  that  Stanford  is  the  most 
liberal  University  in  all  the  world.  It  is  the 
youngest,  and  is  not  trammelled  by  traditions.  It 
is  free  from  prejudice,  and  its  teachers  are  inde- 
pendent and  progressive.  Moreover,  it  stands  for 
the  search  for  truth  and  justice  also,  which  it  is 
sure  to  find.  It  makes  for  more  and  better  life 
among  men  by  exposing  and  denouncing  error  and 
injustice  wherever  they  are  found.  If  not  yet  an 
advocate  of  industrial  freedom  and  the  Single  Tax, 
it  must  ere  long  become  so,  because  all  its  profes- 

125 


sors  are  young  and  unprejudiced  men  of  pre-emi- 
nent ability,  honesty,  and  candor,  untrammelled 
by  authority,  and  unchecked  in  speech,  and,  above 
all,  because  they  are  nobly  supported  by  a  wise 
and  open-minded  chief,  who  is  not  only  prepared 
but  anxious  to  follow  the  teachings  of  both  truth 
and  justice  to  the  very  end,  even  when  those  teach- 
ings overturn  his  own  convictions,and  reverse  him- 
self. Once  let  the  professors  of  Stanford  remove 
the  bandage  which  now  prevents  them  from  see- 
ing the  scales  of  social  justice;  once  let  them  see 
that  the  balance  is  uneven,  that  one  scale  is 
weighted  down  by  the  privilege  of  landlordism 
and  the  incubus  of  concentrated  wealth,  whilst  the 
other  is  raised  by  poverty,  ignorance  and  bare  sub- 
sistence wages  almost  out  of  sight  of  earth  and  all 
its  benefits,  and  I  believe  that  Stanford  will  be  the 
first  University  to  exert  its  power  to  restore 
equality,  and  make  the  balance  even.  Then,  and 
then  alone,  will  justice  be  equivalent  with  truth, 
and  truth  with  justice  also. 

Note  53. — This  kind  of  misuse  of  terms  hurts  the 
real  force  of  your  argument.  That  the  least  of- 
fensive form  of  taxation  is  through  land  rental  I 
am  inclined  to  think  true.     (J.) 

This  is  an  excellent  conclusion.     (S.) 

Note  54. — It  is  best  to  omit  metaphor  in  scien- 

126 


tific  argument,  just  as  in  the  multiplication  table, 
laws  being  many,  as  in  medicine.     (J.j 

No  one  is  able  to  apply  metaphor  to  the  multi- 
plication table,  nor  to  exclude  its  use  in  science. 
So  long  as  the  constant  facts  and  definite  se- 
quences are  there,  it  really  matters  very  little 
whether  what  we  call  them,  but  it  must  of  neces- 
sity be  metaphor.  It  seems  to  me  that  "natural 
law"  as  opposed  to  "human  law"'  is  best.  It  is 
obviously  dangerous  to  speak  of  laws  in  medicine, 
for  only  a  few  have  been  definitely  ascertained, 
but  there  can  be  no  doubt  whatever  that  man  is 
a  land  animal,  that  is,  that  his  life  is  maintained 
by  definite  conditions  supplied  by  land.  (Vide 
Note  12.) 

Note  55. — It  is  wrong  to  break  agreements  or 
contracts  if  chiefly  the  innocent  shall  suffer,  they 
who  trusted  to  our  contracts.     (J.) 

It  is  a  thousand  times  worse  to  let  millions  of 
our  brethren  suffer  from  injustice  and  its  inevi- 
table consequences — starvation,  misery  and  death 
— than  to  inflict  mild  injury  on  a  comparatively 
few,  who  have  long  enjoyed  untold  advantages 
from  contracts  which  neither  party  had  any  just 
right  to  make.     (S.) 

Note  56. — We  do  not  know  enough  to  define  such 
a  basis  to  be  used  in  deductive  argument  as  well 

127 


rest  on  pure  water,  freedom,  sleep  and  absolute 
prohibition.     (J.) 

This  is  a  matter  of  opinion,  but  the  real  question 
is,  Do  the  ascertained  sequences  involved  in  the 
maintenance  of  independent  and  collective  human 
life  define  the  origin  of  individual  and  collective 
wealth,  and  determine  the  rights  of  the  respective 
owners  in  its  distribution? 

Note  57. — It  takes  a  thousand  things  to  make  a 
Utopia.  Industrial  elements  are  only  part. 
Utopia,  in  Mexico,  is  where  no  one  has  to  work, 
and  go  to  a  fair  every  week.  In  an  ideal  condition 
there  would  be  no  majority  vote  or  collective  ac- 
tion except  as  men  strove  to  help  each  other.     (J.) 

And  yet  you  told  your  students  that  unless  our 
souls  dwell  in  Utopia,  life  is  not  worth  the  keep- 
ing. But  in  Nature's  Utopia  there  will  always  be 
a  struggle  between  good  and  evil.  It  is  the  con- 
test between  the  forces  which  would  destroy  and 
those  which  would  uphold  which  keeps  the  plan- 
ets in  their  orbits,  and  hangs  the  constellations  in 
the  firmament.  Without  temptation,  virtue  would 
expire  (Ingalls).  The  choice  between  good  and 
evil  must  be  therefore  open  to  all  men  in  the  best 
Utopia.  Nevertheless  it  is  well  that  our  windows 
should  look  toward  Heaven  rather  than  the  gutter, 
even  though  we  should  fail  to  escape  completely 

128 


from  the  paternalism  of  a  non-representative, 
though  elected  tyranny,  or  fail  to  reach  the  acme 
of  a  just  republic.  In  fact,  we  must  be  satisfied  if 
true  majorities  can  be  made  to  rule.     (S.) 

Note  58. — But  democracy  can  handle  few  things 
wisely;  it  promotes  public  interest  and  intelli- 
gence at  the  cost  of  wisdom  and  persistence.  I 
am  converted  to  proportional  representation  and 
an  elected  oligarchy  as  a  choice  of  evils.     (J.) 

Tyrants  and  plutocrats  handle  few  things  better 
than  democracy,  and  neither  wisdom  nor  persist- 
ence can  compensate  for  any  sacrifice  of  public  in- 
terest and  intelligence.  No  representation  is  wor- 
thy of  the  name  unless  it  be  proportional,  and  no 
oligarchy  can  be  effective  unless  personal  respon- 
sibility is  entirely  replaced  by  corporate  responsi- 
bility truly  representing  the  power  of  the  people. 

To  sum  up  the  results  of  this  correspondence,  I 
agree  with  you  that  practically  we  are  not  far 
apart.  We  agree  that  true  representation  depends 
on  proportional  voting  and  a  pure  and  effective 
ballot.  That  government  must  be  wholly  by  an 
elected,  untrammelled  oligarchy.  That  the  taxa- 
tion of  land  values  is  wiser  than  the  taxation  of  in- 
dustrial exertion,  and  although  you  do  not  yet  see 
your  way  to  the  complete  relief  of  individual  in- 
dustry from  all  taxation,  I  am  satisfied  that  you 
must  eventually  come  to  that  conclusion.     When 

129 


individual  industry  shall  once  be  freed,  nothing 
will  be  left  for  taxation  except  land  made  valu- 
able by  the  population. 

I  confidently  anticipate  that  you  will  lend  the 
influence  of  your  great  name,  and  that  of  the  in- 
stitution over  which  you  so  effectively  preside,  in 
favor  of  these  great  reforms,  which  lie  at  the  foun- 
dation of  all  social  progress.     (S.) 


gi  I        9 


UNIVER5 

TI 

This  book  i 

Jw  1 9  mi 

>ITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  LOS 
IE  UNIVERSITY  LIBRA 
s  DUE  on  the  last  date  sta 

ANGELES 

RY 

mped  below 

JUN  3  0  1348 

m* 91959 

■■ 

*  JSfW 

OEC   5  908 

Form  1,-9 
23m-2,  '43(5205) 

UNIVERSITY  of  CALIFORNIA 

AT 

LOS  ANGELES 

LIBRARY 


HB 

171  Jordan   - 

G29J7 — The   true   basis 
of  economics. 


UCLA-Young   Research   Library 

HB171.G29   J7 

y 


L  009   545  762   8 


HB 

171 

G29J7 


